# Unarmed Florida Teen Shot



## MJS

I'm sure everyone has heard about this case.  There are numerous links, so I'll post a few.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...shooting-death-of-florida-teen-trayvon-martin



> In the wake of spreading public outrage, the Justice Department and the FBI have opened an investigation into the shooting of a black teenager by a Florida neighborhood watch captain who escaped arrest.
> More than 435,000 people, many alerted by tweets from celebrities such as movie director Spike Lee and musician Wyclef Jean, signed a petition on Change.org, a social action website, calling for the arrest of the shooter, George Zimmerman.
> The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the FBI announced on Monday that they have opened an investigation into the shooting in Florida of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed when he was killed.



http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46781618



> The family of a Florida teen fatally shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer last month is speaking out, saying that the shooting was unprovoked and racially motivated.
> Trayvon Martin, 17, was killed by George Zimmerman in a Sanford, Fla., gated community on the evening of Feb. 26 as he returned from a trip to a local 7-Eleven. Martin and his father were visiting family friends there. Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self defense, and has not been charged with a crime.



http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-complicate-trayvon-martin-teen-shooting-case



> Floridas 2005 Stand Your Ground law, which says a citizen doesnt have to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker, could throw a legal wrinkle into the case of a neighborhood watch captain who shot to death an unarmed black teenager.
> Police in the central Florida town of Sanford have said that 28-year-old George Zimmerman says he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense during a confrontation in a gated community. Police have described Zimmerman as white; his family says he is Hispanic and not racist.



Does this sound like a justified shooting?


----------



## granfire

I just briefly looked away when it came on in the news....

There are soo many odd things....

I, personally, will wait for the movie to come out.

However it seems to me that the roles have been assigned. Nothing new, nothing surprising...


----------



## billc

Does the victim have a police record?  I ask because all too often, the "my son never did anything wrong," turns out to be a long criminal record.  I would like to know all the facts, and not just the spike lee facts, before we determine what may have actually happened.  An attacker doesn't have to be armed to kill you.  Do we know the victim was unarmed yet?  Or is that just what people are saying?


----------



## granfire

Armed with a pack of skittles from what I gathered...


----------



## Big Don

Zimmerman, the shooter, is Hispanic, by the way. But, apparently, when it suits their purpose, Hispanics are Caucasian...


----------



## David43515

It`s almost impossible to tell if it`s justified or not because the article gives almost no info on the shooting itself. I`m going to assume that if the police didn`t make an arrest at the scene that it`s not cut and dried. Let them investigate and let the DA`s office decide whether it`s self defense or not. As much as I enjoy his work, I don`t think that Spike Lee is qualified to make that call if he has no more info than was in your news article. (And what ever happened to journalism based on facts? That story was so full of opinion it made my skin crawl.)


----------



## ballen0351

biggest problem zimmerman is going to have is he was told to stop following the kid the police were on the way.  He ignored them and confronted the kid.


----------



## WC_lun

Some things really do look...odd.  From what I've seen in the media, the kid was not one to get in trouble.  No record.  He was unarmed, carrying Skittles and a bottle of ice tea.  Zimmerman on the other hand carried a 9mm, called 911 42 times in 12 months with a majority of those because black youths were either in the neighborhood or at the gate, Zimmerman was told not to follow or confront the victim, and witnesses say right after the shooting Zimmerman was standing over the kid, feet straddling him. Now obviously we aren't privy to all the information, but with what I've seen so far, it would be hard to believe he was in fear for his life or acted with appropriate force.

I don't think even with the Florida law you get to force a confrontation then shoot the person forced into the confrontation with you in "self defense."


----------



## granfire

Big Don said:


> Zimmerman, the shooter, is Hispanic, by the way. But, apparently, when it suits their purpose, Hispanics are Caucasian...



Don't you remember? The FBI statistics has them as caucasians in the statistics.


----------



## IcemanSK

Zimmerman was told to back off by the police dispatcher to which he said, "ok." Then he shot this unarmed kid. Self defense? Not in anyone's book.


----------



## Big Don

granfire said:


> Don't you remember? The FBI statistics has them as caucasians in the statistics.


Uh huh, which makes all the BS about "Racism" against illegals go away, right?


----------



## crushing

granfire said:


> Don't you remember? The FBI statistics has them as caucasians in the statistics.



FBI statistics have nothing to do with media driven narratives regarding race relations.  I have no doubt that if Zimmerman was instead in the news for his enthusiastic support of President Obama the media would label him a Hispanic voter.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:
			
		

> Does the victim have a police record?



*No.*

In fact, _Zimmerman_  was charged with battery against on officer and resisting arrest in 2005, a charge which was later expunged.



			
				billcihak said:
			
		

> I ask because all too often, the "my son never did anything wrong," turns out to be a long criminal record.



I know why you ask. 



			
				billcihak said:
			
		

> I would like to know all the facts



You're probably not going to like them any more than I do, though not for the same reasons.



			
				billcihak said:
			
		

> , and not just the _*spike lee facts*_,



_Really?_. Huh. 

That must be why you ask.



			
				billcihak said:
			
		

> before we determine what may have actually happened.  An attacker doesn't have to be armed to kill you.  Do we know the victim was unarmed yet?  Or is that just what people are saying?




As gran said, armed with a bag of Skittles and a can of Arizona Ice Tea

On the phone with his girlfriend when  the confrontation occurred-told her he was being followed. Local PD-who didn't charge Zimmerman, or drug/alcohol test him, or impound his car-refused testimony from girlfriend. 

Local PD ignored or refused  several 9-11 callers that were local residents reporting the confrontation and shooting as saying that the boy (who was outweighed by Zimmerman by about 100lbs.) screamed for help right before Zimmerman shot him.. In fact, they assume that it was Zimmerman screaming for help, and even told one witness, a school teacher who said-and is still saying-that she heard the boy screaming for help, that what she'd heard was Zimmerman screaming for help.

Local PD sent a narcotics detective, instead of a homicide detective, who local witnesses describe as questioning Zimmerman, instead of letting him tell his story.

Local PD kept boys body in morgue as a "John Doe," for two days, even though they had a missing persons report from the boy's father, '_and had the boy's cell phone._ *REALLY.*

Local PD ignored-oh, "_missed_"-racial slur from Zimmerman in his initial 9-11 call, "_****ing *coons*._"

I'd wager that the boy's parents are going to _*own*_ that town, never mind Zimmerman-who may never be charged- but it won't bring their son back.


----------



## MJS

I think the FBIs stats are a bit ****ed up! LOL!  All of the stories that I've heard so far, have pointed to this kid being unarmed.  Of course, the kid could be an ax murderer, and his parents would probably still say, "Oh he's a good kid.  He was on the basketball team, did well in school....."  Of course, I dont know the kid, so who knows...good, bad, I don't know.  In any case, the shooter sounds like a volunteer wanna-be cop.  Probably can't pass the test to be a real cop, so he's a neighborhood watch square badge tool.  He also sounds like someone who shouldn't have a gun.  Sorry, but pulling a gun on someone unarmed seems a bit overkill.  Now, if the other kid had a weapon, sure, I could justify that.

Nothing wrong with a watch patrol, but they tend to forget they're not cops.  They're simply members of the community they live in, who want to be vigilant of crime in their neighborhood.  That doesnt give them the right to chase after someone, confront someone, arrest someone, etc.  You wanna play hero fine, but know the line is drawn at calling the cops and being a good witness.


----------



## seasoned

Eyes and ears only, for sure.


----------



## elder999

MJS said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with a watch patrol, but they tend to forget they're not cops.  They're simply members of the community they live in, who want to be vigilant of crime in their neighborhood.  That doesnt give them the right to chase after someone, confront someone, arrest someone, etc.  You wanna play hero fine, but know the line is drawn at calling the cops and being a good witness.



Apparently, Zimmerman is a _*self-appointe*_d neighborhood watch of one.


----------



## Steve

I wasn't there, so I don't know all of the facts.  The article I read mentioned that he was on the phone with his girlfriend and was worried about the guy who was following him.  At worst, this is a despicable bigot who killed an innocent young man.  At best, it's two scared people who overreacted.  Either way, it's a really said indictment of where we are as a country.


----------



## elder999

Steve said:
			
		

> I wasn't there, so I don't know all of the facts.  The article I read mentioned that he was on the phone with his girlfriend and was worried about the guy who was following him.  At worst, this is a despicable bigot who killed an innocent young man.  At best, it's two scared people who overreacted.  Either way, it's a really said indictment of where we are as a country.



Leaving aside all the evidence there seems to be of police procedural errors, if not downright misconduct, I don't think an unarmed, innocent 17 year old boy can "overreact" to an armed stranger following him in a car and accosting him. This is the kind of thing  we all are warned about as children, the kind of thing we warn our own children about_. It's the kind of thing "neighborhood watches" are supposed to protect children* against.*_ If anything, the kid _underreacted:_ he told his girlfriend he wasn't going to run like she told him to, but that he would walk fast.

Kid should have run like hell, instead of dying 70 yards from his dad's home.


----------



## billc

As to the body being in the morgue two days...it happens because it is a government agency, prone to laziness and corruption...

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/cook-county-medical-examiner-morgue-employees-fired-bodies-stacked-scandal-20120224




> An   *overhaul of the morgue was launched*  in January after problems came to light, including more than 300 bodies improperly stored in the cooler.
> 
> Staff  also complained about bodily fluids pooling on the floor of the cooler,  exposing employees to blood-born pathogens. The Illinois Department of  Labor has launched its own investigation of workplace safety at the  morgue.



They will be lucky if only one body waits two days to be identified or the relatives notified...


----------



## billc

Hmmmm...this is a question for the law enforcement officers here on martialtalk in relation to this thread.  Is it uncommon for the family of a shooting victim to claim the victim was "a good boy who never hurt anyone," only to find out that in reality the individual did in fact have a criminal record?  Just asking?


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...this is a question for the law enforcement officers here on martialtalk in relation to this thread.  Is it uncommon for the family of a shooting victim to claim the victim was "a good boy who never hurt anyone," only to find out that in reality the individual did in fact have a criminal record?  Just asking?


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> Hmmmm...this is a question for the law enforcement officers here on martialtalk in relation to this thread.  Is it uncommon for the family of a shooting victim to claim the victim was "a good boy who never hurt anyone," only to find out that in reality the individual did in fact have a criminal record?  Just asking?


This is pretty much what they're saying about the guy who pulled the trigger.  What I think is interesting is that your immediate reaction is to question the character of the person who is dead and not ask the same questions of the person who killed him.


----------



## granfire

Oh, the stereotypes that are abundant in this case...

A good write can keep a soap floating on that one story for well over a year....

The cop wanna be, the non white teenager...oh sweetness.


And billi trying to sew doubt...

I am sure heads rolled at the morgue, after all, a high profile case. 

But only on TV to they haul the body in and cut them open (including complex tox screens) within 15 minutes.

two days is probably nothing - also assuming he was not the only customer there at the time.


----------



## billc

Actually Steve, I also pointed out...


> I would like to know all the facts, and not just the spike lee facts,  before we determine what may have actually happened.  An attacker  doesn't have to be armed to kill you.  Do we know the victim was unarmed  yet?  Or is that just what people are saying?



I get tired of law enforcement automatically being assumed to have, according to our president, "...acted stupidly..."  The initial reports were that the guy was on the neighborhood watch, and that he got into an altercation with another individual.  As soon as it was determined that the person who was shot was african american, the neighborhood watch guy was automatically assumed to be a racist.  The same goes with police involved shootings.  I watch too many news shows where the person shot by the police, or the actual victim, is said to have been " a good boy, who never hurt anyone," to later find out they had extensive criminal records, and violent ones at that.  Before they call racism, hispanic on african american, racism at that, let's see all the facts, including the  background of the guy who was shot.  How about we do that first...


----------



## billc

Heard about this shooting today on our news at lunch...

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/21/police-fire-shots-at-armed-suspect-in-wicker-park/



> Four men, including one who allegedly displayed a gun at police, prompting them to fire shots during a foot chase, are being questioned after the early Friday incident in the Wicker Park neighborhood.
> Officers were patrolling in the 1300 block of North Ashland Avenue because there has been a robbery pattern occurring in that area, police said.
> Officers saw a group of men who they wanted to question but when they approached, the four fled and police gave chase on foot. During the pursuit, one suspect displayed a gun towards police, according to police.





> The officers fired at the armed suspect about 1:25 a.m. in an alley at 1307 N. Ashland Ave, News Affairs Officer Robert Perez said.


The news station questioned witnesses who all said they did not see a gun.  Hmmm...the police or the witnesses, which ones are the racists here...Steve...Elder...I guess it must be the cops because, well, they are cops after all...


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> Actually Steve, I also pointed out...
> 
> 
> I get tired of law enforcement automatically being assumed to have, according to our president, "...acted stupidly..."  The initial reports were that the guy was on the neighborhood watch, and that he got into an altercation with another individual.  As soon as it was determined that the person who was shot was african american, the neighborhood watch guy was automatically assumed to be a racist.  The same goes with police involved shootings.  I watch too many news shows where the person shot by the police, or the actual victim, is said to have been " a good boy, who never hurt anyone," to later find out they had extensive criminal records, and violent ones at that.  Before they call racism, hispanic on african american, racism at that, let's see all the facts, including the  background of the guy who was shot.  How about we do that first...


Right.  You appear to be reflexively siding with the guy who killed the kid.  I'm not saying that the questions you ask are unfounded.  I'm saying that it's notable that you're asking these questions only about the black kid and not the dude who shot him.  

Once again, for clarity.  I don't have any problem with a genuine desire to learn more about the situation.  I do, however, think that asking for only specific information about the kid is a good indication that you really aren't looking for the whole story, as it were.  

As you say, you're tired of LEO being taken to task and it looks to me like you're actively trying to spin allegations and insinuations in order to paint the kid in a bad light.  While you admit knowing nothing about him, the questions you're asking imply that he's a thug or worse.  At the same time, you avoid asking anything about the guy who actually killed the kid.


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> Heard about this shooting today on our news at lunch...
> 
> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/10/21/police-fire-shots-at-armed-suspect-in-wicker-park/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The news station questioned witnesses who all said they did not see a gun.  Hmmm...the police or the witnesses, which ones are the racists here...Steve...Elder...I guess it must be the cops because, well, they are cops after all...


You're going to have to spell it out for me.  I'm not seeing any relevance.


----------



## jks9199

1.  Hispanics are Caucasion, Black, and various Native American/Indio.  Hispanic is really more an ethnicity than a race.  That's why you'll sometimes see the question asked along the lines of "Race? White/Black/Asian/Other Hispanic? Y/N"

2.  There are too many conficting, contradictory accounts to judge at this remove.  I see a lot of problems and questions.  I suspect that, in the end, we'll see the guy arrested.  Like I said, there are too many problems.

3.  As to conflicts in the image in the press -- of course.  Always.  The press presents its view of each person involved in something.  They decide who will be portrayed sympathetically, and who'll be painted as a monster.  The truth, like always, is often somewhere well within the extremes.


----------



## billc

The nature of the first article posted was that it was a racist shooting, that the teenager wasn't doing anything wrong at the time, as per his mother, and that the no retreat laws hold a large part of the blame.  The article was slanted against the shooter and didn't look at the guy who was shot in any way other than what his mother said about him.  That is a biased article that completely ignored the alleged victim.  Who jumped to intitial conclusions about the attack?  The reporter?

The second article mirrors the first accusations of racism based on the families statements.  Of course, the family wasn't at the scene of the crime and didn't witness the shooting, but the coverage is all about it being a racist shooting, without knowing all the facts on the ground.

the last article is the only article in the original post that even hints that the shooting may have been accidental because of the struggle between the two, and still not one bit of background on the teenager who was shot other than from his family.  The father of the shooter says his son isn't a racist.  Who is lying?  These articles are slanted, so from practical experience of crime watching on the news I want to know the real history of the other guy.  The initial report was that he was the one that had 911 called on him.  Yet, still, no background from any of those articles.  Who really wants all the facts before judgement is made, and racism is laid at the feet of the other guy?


----------



## billc

Driving around tonight I realized the problem with this thread.  Some here saw that a black teenager was shot and immediately put on their, "everything about this is racism," glasses, so tightly, they can't see anything else.  I heard neighborhood watch, shooting, and victim and put on my "crime" glasses, I want to know wether this neighborhood watch guy was actually dealing with a criminal and if the shooting was right.  The racism angle was completely covered in the three original posts, the "was this an actual criminal," part was covered by asking the family about the guy who was shot.  Some people can't get past race, and they never will.  Not all crime that involves minorities is a racism issue.  Get over it.  If this case involves an innocent person being shot, through negligence or intent, then the shooter should and hopefully will be punished.  If it was an accident and/or the teenager who was shot was perpetrating a crime, then he made the decisions that put him in that place.  

The race machine being activated is not going to help solve this issue.  Unfortunately, there is  a lot of money now on the line with this case and that won't help either.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> . Local PD-who didn't charge Zimmerman,


Yet. Investigations take time esp when they are national news you want to get it right. This is a small department Im sure they dont deal with the media that often so they are making sure to cross every T and dot every i.



> or drug/alcohol test him,


Not sure why that matters but we normally dont drug test or alcohol test people unless its a DUI case. Even when I shot someone on duty I was not drug or alcohol tested.



> or impound his car


He was on foot dont need his car.



> testimony from girlfriend.


You know this how?



> Local PD ignored or refused several 9-11 callers that were local residents reporting the confrontation


They dispatched officer when Zimmerman called well before the shooting and told him to back away and stop following the kid. We get suspicious black kid in neighborhood calls all the time we dont even send officers because last time I checked being black was not a crime. So when they did dispach the call at first Im sure it was not set as a priority. 



> and shooting as saying that the boy (who was outweighed by Zimmerman by about 100lbs.) screamed for help right before Zimmerman shot him.. In fact, they assume that it was Zimmerman screaming for help, and even told one witness, a school teacher who said-and is still saying-that she heard the boy screaming for help, that what she'd heard was Zimmerman screaming for help.


 When I listened to the playback of the 911 call it sounds like a man yelling to me but I wasnt there so I dont know.



> Local PD sent a narcotics detective, instead of a homicide detective, who local witnesses describe as questioning Zimmerman, instead of letting him tell his story.


Its a small department Im pretty sure they dont even have a homicide division most small departments dont. They send whatever Detective is working that night to the call. As a Narcotics Detective for many years I would be quite capable of investigating this call. Not rocket science when you already know who did it thats the hardest part.



> Local PD kept boys body in morgue as a "John Doe," for two days, even though they had a missing persons report from the boy's father, '_and had the boy's cell phone._ *REALLY. *


local PD and state medical examiners office are two different things most if not all police departments dont have or operate a morgue. 



> Local PD ignored-oh, "_missed_"-racial slur from Zimmerman in his initial 9-11 call, "_****ing *coons*._"


How do you know they ignored it?



> I'd wager that the boy's parents are going to _*own*_ that town,


Naa I doubt it


----------



## billc

Here is some more detail on the actual event...

http://www.wesh.com/r/30692415/detail.html



> The investigators said George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin, told them  initially that he did get out of his car to follow Martin on foot, but the  17-year-old came at him.The two got into a fight, and when they were on the ground, Zimmerman  claimed Martin hit him in the face and that Zimmerman began yelling for help,  the investigators said.Police said Zimmerman's account, which was corroborated by witnesses,  indicates Martin was the aggressor.There have also been differing accounts about whom witnesses heard crying  for help that night, but the lead detective on the case says he played a  recording of that voice for Martin's father and the Miami man said the voice was  not his son's.



For emphasis...



> Police said Zimmerman's account, which was corroborated by witnesses,  indicates Martin was the aggressor.There have also been differing accounts about whom witnesses heard crying  for help that night, but the lead detective on the case says he played a  recording of that voice for Martin's father and the Miami man said the voice was  not his son's.


Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/30692415/detail.html#ixzz1poc9tyyr


----------



## ballen0351

billcihak said:


> Here is some more detail on the actual event...
> 
> http://www.wesh.com/r/30692415/detail.html
> 
> 
> 
> For emphasis...
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/30692415/detail.html#ixzz1poc9tyyr



Also from the above story:
the detectives claim it was actually prosecutors who advised them they did not have enough evidence to win a manslaughter conviction.​


----------



## billc

About the criminal in france...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/nazis_or_muslim_terrorists_does_it_matter.html



> The gunman's neighbors have lined up to tell reporters that he was a nice guy, a quiet person, and not very





> religious.  Just a normal French citizen who happened to have a criminal background, belong to a Salafist group and travel to Afghanistan (where he was arrested for bomb making!) and Pakistan.



Hmmm...just a nice guy who would never hurt anyone...anyone...
​


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> About the criminal in france...
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/nazis_or_muslim_terrorists_does_it_matter.html
> 
> 
> Hmmm...just a nice guy who would never hurt anyone...anyone...
> ​




which would be in the wrong thread....

Let me ask you something?
Is that a rightwing, conservative thing that you can't let at least the body go cold?


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> Hmmmm...this is a question for the law enforcement officers here on martialtalk in relation to this thread. Is it uncommon for the family of a shooting victim to claim the victim was "a good boy who never hurt anyone," only to find out that in reality the individual did in fact have a criminal record? Just asking?



I dont know the criminal history for either party involved, however, IMHO, yes, it seems to be par for the course, that any person that is arrested, shot, etc, the family of the person usually claims that they're the finest of all citizens.  

Personally, I'm not really sure what this thread has to do with LEOs.  Whether or not they made an arrest or not, IMO, is moot to this thread.  Aren't you in LE?  If so, I'm sure that you know that things dont happen overnight, despite what this kids family thinks.  Obviosuly the dead kid can't talk, the guy that shot the kid isn't going to make himself sound like the badguy, and unless there were witnesses, then its pretty much all on the laps of the cops, to try to piece this mess together.


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> Driving around tonight I realized the problem with this thread. Some here saw that a black teenager was shot and immediately put on their, "everything about this is racism," glasses, so tightly, they can't see anything else. I heard neighborhood watch, shooting, and victim and put on my "crime" glasses, I want to know wether this neighborhood watch guy was actually dealing with a criminal and if the shooting was right. The racism angle was completely covered in the three original posts, the "was this an actual criminal," part was covered by asking the family about the guy who was shot. Some people can't get past race, and they never will. Not all crime that involves minorities is a racism issue. Get over it. If this case involves an innocent person being shot, through negligence or intent, then the shooter should and hopefully will be punished. If it was an accident and/or the teenager who was shot was perpetrating a crime, then he made the decisions that put him in that place.
> 
> The race machine being activated is not going to help solve this issue. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money now on the line with this case and that won't help either.



Well, then you and I are wearing the same glasses, because when I saw this article, I was thinking the same thing you were.  If any of my posts suggested otherwise, I apologize in advance for that.  Frankly, I don't care if they were both green men from mars....I want to discuss, all race issues aside, whether or not this neighborhood watch yahoo, was justified in shooting or whether he acted like John Wayne and just blasted away, because in his untrained eye, this kid was bad.  

Sadly, race probably will come into this.  Maybe the guy hated blacks..I dont know.  And like I said, this kid could be the biggest criminal in the area, but its very possible that whether his family know/do not know his background, they're going to do what alot of parents do...automatically take their kids side, because in their eyes, their kid can do no wrong.

Sorry, but thats the biggest bunch of BS!  No, what should happen, is the parents should listen to both sides of the story.  When I did something wrong, thats what my parents did.  If I was being wrongfully blamed for something, they'd fight for me.  But if I was indeed wrong, yes, I'd get my *** whacked.


----------



## zDom

From what I've read, it sounds to be like the shooter has placed himself in a bad situation.

It will be very hard to argue, should he be brought up on charges, that it was self defense if he pursued the person who got shot.

That isn't "standing ground" as I see it, although the courts may not see it that way.

Worse, he has provided ample opportunity for the media to make CCW and the "stand your ground" law look bad. Really bad. Not saying he is one, but it only takes one idiot to screw things up and get legislation or referendums rolling. Nevermind all the legitimate cases of self defense. All they need is one instance gone wrong to raise the ol' hue and cry.

I am kind of surprised that he was not arrested in that there is at least some doubt as to what happened. No harm in booking and releasing on his own recognisance: I doubt the LEOs would have been liable for a false arrest and it tosses the hot potato off to the courts ... where it belongs.

If he is bound over during the prelim, time to lawyer up. If he is not bound over, I would feel as if the court looked at all the evidence and determined there was not enough reason to believe a crime was committed.

IMO, the right thing to do had he been on Neighborhood Watch, would be to continue to watch from a distance and call police (hah.. for the 10,000 time) if he observed any criminal type behavior such as creeping up to a home not his own or tampering with a vehicle.

As a person who takes an active interest in self defense: if I am scared of someone I am not following him down the street to see what he is doing. I'll leave that to the brave Boys in Blue who carry a shield and wear a vest in addition to being armed.


Just my thoughts based on what I have read.


----------



## cdunn

MJS said:


> Well, then you and I are wearing the same glasses, because when I saw this article, I was thinking the same thing you were. If any of my posts suggested otherwise, I apologize in advance for that. Frankly, I don't care if they were both green men from mars....I want to discuss, all race issues aside, whether or not this neighborhood watch yahoo, was justified in shooting or whether he acted like John Wayne and just blasted away, because in his untrained eye, this kid was bad.
> 
> Sadly, race probably will come into this. Maybe the guy hated blacks..I dont know. And like I said, this kid could be the biggest criminal in the area, but its very possible that whether his family know/do not know his background, they're going to do what alot of parents do...automatically take their kids side, because in their eyes, their kid can do no wrong.
> 
> Sorry, but thats the biggest bunch of BS! No, what should happen, is the parents should listen to both sides of the story. When I did something wrong, thats what my parents did. If I was being wrongfully blamed for something, they'd fight for me. But if I was indeed wrong, yes, I'd get my *** whacked.



Colors don't really matter; "neighborhood watch" or not, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, continued pursuit AFTER being ordered by police to break contact, and pulled the trigger. He did not need to exit his automobile, and Martin, by any available account, did not attempt to draw him out of the car, nor did he threaten Zimmerman while he was in the car. He may have (probably did) started swinging at Zimmerman once the gut caught up to him. 

So, question for you: If you were being chased down by an unknown person of approximately double your size, possibly brandishing a weapon, had already failed to evade him, in a non-threatening fashion, in a neighborhood that you have every right to be in, what are you going to do? 

Regardless of what happened once he got out of the car and started chasing the kid, there is every appearance of Zimmerman being liable for assault. Whether it ends at assault or runs all the way through 2nd degree murder is debateable - and to what degree evidence is available for these charges is another thing entirely.


----------



## MJS

cdunn said:


> Colors don't really matter; "neighborhood watch" or not, Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, continued pursuit AFTER being ordered by police to break contact, and pulled the trigger. He did not need to exit his automobile, and Martin, by any available account, did not attempt to draw him out of the car, nor did he threaten Zimmerman while he was in the car. He may have (probably did) started swinging at Zimmerman once the gut caught up to him.



I agree, and I said the same thing in another post.  



> So, question for you: If you were being chased down by an unknown person of approximately double your size, possibly brandishing a weapon, had already failed to evade him, in a non-threatening fashion, in a neighborhood that you have every right to be in, what are you going to do?



Well, in his case, I'd have taken the advice his girlfriend was giving him...run!  However, perhaps calling the police would've also been another option.  



> Regardless of what happened once he got out of the car and started chasing the kid, there is every appearance of Zimmerman being liable for assault. Whether it ends at assault or runs all the way through 2nd degree murder is debateable - and to what degree evidence is available for these charges is another thing entirely.



Agreed.  This, IMO, is the #1 problem with the rent-a-cop, square badge jokers...they think they're cops, when they're really not.


----------



## cdunn

MJS said:


> Well, in his case, I'd have taken the advice his girlfriend was giving him...run! However, perhaps calling the police would've also been another option.
> 
> Agreed. This, IMO, is the #1 problem with the rent-a-cop, square badge jokers...they think they're cops, when they're really not.



This is where race starts to play a role, unfortunately. Running from this sort makes you look like you're in the process of commiting a crime. If - and we don't know this - Martin had reason to believe that Zimmerman was armed, or if Zimmerman was already brandishing or displaying his weapon, he may have believed that running would also get him shot. Zimmerman's weapon may have been concealed, he may have laid hands on Martin, before Martin (possibly) struck at him. We just don't know.


----------



## MJS

cdunn said:


> This is where race starts to play a role, unfortunately. Running from this sort makes you look like you're in the process of commiting a crime. If - and we don't know this - Martin had reason to believe that Zimmerman was armed, or if Zimmerman was already brandishing or displaying his weapon, he may have believed that running would also get him shot. Zimmerman's weapon may have been concealed, he may have laid hands on Martin, before Martin (possibly) struck at him. We just don't know.



Yes sir, you are correct.   Like I said I'm primarily looking to discuss the shooting, but no doubt, the race of the parties involved will come into play.  I don't know the answer to this, so I'm going to ask:  I assume that private security, neighborhood watch groups, etc, have some sort of policy that they have to follow.  I mean, I'd find it hard to believe that the local PD would say to the watch patrol, "Sure, if you see something suspicious, go ahead, initiate a stop, question the person, detain them, whatever you have to do."  No, instead, I'd wager a strong guess that they're advised to observe, gather info, and call the police.  Like I said, they're not cops, despite their apparent want to be one..lol.  

Hey, for all I know, this kid may've been a straight A student and the best kid a parent could ever have.  In no way, shape or form, am I saying what happened was right.  Even if the kid was a dirt bag, I'm sorry, but if you're going to draw a gun, then God dammit, you better be damn sure that you're justified in doing so.  If this guy was not justified, then I can only hope that he spends many years in a prison cell.  And again, this is all the more reason, armed or not, to call the cops.  This guy has no way to verify who this kid is.


----------



## billc

MJS, I don't have any problem with your thread or the articles you listed.  Since the watch guy claimed self-defense, I wanted to know what the background on the teenager was.  Some here on the thread questioned my motives.  The articles did not deal with any background on the kid other than what the parents said, and as you have pointed out, and I have seen over my lifetime,  what parents say about their children isn't always how those kids actually are.

I posted this thread to show that this killer in France, who murdered children, was said to have been an apparently nice guy by his neighbors...




> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/nazis_or_muslim_terrorists_does_it_matter.html
> 
> 
> The gunman's neighbors have lined up to tell reporters that he was a nice guy, a quiet person, and not very
> religious. Just a normal French citizen who happened to have a criminal background, belong to a Salafist group and travel to Afghanistan (where he was arrested for bomb making!) and Pakistan.



which makes my point in my original question.

I am not in Law enforcement but I have friends and family at both ends of the LE spectrum, the catching and keeping of criminals and I hear the stories.  One of my instructors was a police officer who was responding to multiple 911 calls for fires.  The calls were intentional false alarms and the caller was a kid.  This was back when stores actually had pay phones.  My instructor/police officer, went to the store location where the calls were being made from and hid where he could see the phone bank.  Sure enough, a kid went to the phones and made a call.  My friend called his station to see if a 911 call had just gone out, they reported back that it had and the location was the same phone bank.  Well, my friend took the kid into custody and took him to where his mother was in the store and started talking to them.  As he is doing this, the kid was crying and an old lady, not involved in the event, walks up and tells the mother to not let the mean police officer bully her child.  She had no idea what had led up to the event, and just assumed my friend was in the wrong.  The kid had put the lives of people at risk, the fire men responding to the false alarms, and the people on the roads they drove down responding to the false alarms.   So, I know these stories of "my son never did anything wrong, and is a good boy," and before they destroy this neighborhood watch guy, it would be nice to know what actually happened.

Another story.  My brother is a LEO in a nearby town.  His first day on the job he was involved in a foot pursuit of a suspect, and chased this guy to a house.  The guy goes in.  My brother gets to the door to go in, and someone, not the suspect, pushes the door closed on him.  My brother radioed his training officer, who was just getting to the house and they knock and demand to be let in.  Once in there were 3 or 4  people in the living room.  My brother and his T.O. ask them where the guy is.  All of them say, "the guy isn't here."  Since my brother followed him to the door, he tells them that if they don't tell where the guy is, some of them are going to jail too.  He then said, where is he, and all 4 of them pointed to the ceiling, meaning he was upstairs.  

The friends and family of victims and perpetrators are not always reliable when it comes to these cases.  Add in the race element and it gets worse.  Add in the race machine, Al "tawana Brawley" sharpton, who is on his way to Florida as we speak, and the situation becomes even worse.


----------



## billc

Was the body cold enough during your posting of this granfire...



> I, personally, will wait for the movie to come out.



Here is a decent article on the event...no offense meant to your articles MJS...this is just new and covers the story pretty well...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/treyvon-martin-scant-evidence-already-a-verdict/



> Little but the most rudimentary facts are known about the shooting: On the night of February 17, Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old boy, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man. (Some news accounts have described Zimmerman as Latino.) Prior to the shooting, Zimmerman, who was active in his gated community&#8217;s neighborhood watch, phoned the Sanford police department and reported a suspicious person whom he described as a male black wearing a dark &#8220;hoodie,&#8221; jeans or sweat pants, and white tennis shoes. Exactly why Zimmerman found Martin worthy of suspicion remains unclear, but he told the police dispatcher there had been some break-ins in the neighborhood, and that &#8220;this guy looks like he&#8217;s up to no good, or he&#8217;s on drugs or something. It&#8217;s raining and he&#8217;s just walking around, looking about.&#8221;
> Moments after the call to police ended, Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest, killing him. But why?
> Zimmerman, who was licensed in Florida to carry a concealed weapon, told police he had fired in self-defense, but the details of his statement to investigators have not been made public. The dearth of details has not prevented an outcry calling for Zimmerman&#8217;s arrest for murder. So intense is the political pressure on prosecutors that Zimmerman will almost certainly be charged with a crime, but there is little chance he&#8217;ll be convicted of one, certainly not murder.
> ADVERTISEMENT​
> 
> The death of Trayvon Martin is simply not one that will lend itself to a tidy resolution in the criminal justice system. This is not a case in which some homicidal predator killed someone in the course of a robbery. On the other hand, Zimmerman&#8217;s critics have painted him as an overzealous vigilante who stepped beyond the customary limits of the neighborhood watch member by pursuing a person who had done nothing more than behave suspiciously.
> Indeed, Zimmerman seems an easy figure to caricature. At National Review Online, Robert VerBruggen calls him &#8220;a classic cop wannabe.&#8221; Zimmerman, VerBruggen writes, &#8220;lov[ed] the thought of himself as a police officer, and witnessing a spate of break-ins in his neighborhood, he decided to patrol the streets in his SUV &#8212; carrying a gun (as he was licensed to do) and calling the cops 46 times in the course of a year to report &#8216;suspicious&#8217; activity.&#8221;
> Most police officers will recognize the archetype that VerBruggen assumes Zimmerman to be: the guy who wants to be a cop but for some reason cannot, but who nonetheless acts as a sort of watchman for his neighborhood, calling the police for any perceived breach of good order. And calling the police 46 times in a single year would indeed seem excessive if not psychotic. But, as Andrew Cohen reports at the _Atlanti_c, Zimmerman&#8217;s 46 calls to police came over the course of 11 years, not one, with the confusion owing to a typo on a report released by the Sanford police. And given the level of crime in the area, an average of four calls per year may not be an inordinate amount at all. (The website Crimemapping.comlists 282 crimes within a mile of the site of the shooting within the last six months, including three burglaries within the gated community itself.)





> But, asAndrew Cohen reports at the _Atlanti_c, Zimmerman&#8217;s 46 calls to police came over the course of 11 years, not one, with the confusion owing to a typo on a report released by the Sanford police.





> Much has been made of the claim the Zimmerman &#8220;pursued&#8221; Martin against the advice of the police dispatcher. On the tape of Zimmerman&#8217;s 911 call, the dispatcher asks if Zimmerman is following the suspect. Zimmerman replies that he is. &#8220;We don&#8217;t need you to do that,&#8221; says the dispatcher.
> Note that the dispatcher&#8217;s words were something less than imperative. But even if the dispatcher had expressly directed Zimmerman not to follow the suspect, would Zimmerman have been legally bound to follow such a direction? No, he would not.





> My own inference from listening to the 911 tapes is that Zimmerman stopped running after Martin during his call to police, but then followed Martin&#8217;s path in an attempt to see where Martin had gone. Note that at the beginning of the 911 call, Zimmerman is seated in his truck, apparently in the area of the complex&#8217;s clubhouse near the gated entrance. But the shooting occurred on a walkway running past the rear yards of the townhouses, an area where Zimmerman would not have been able to drive his truck. Why did Martin walk back there? Did he come upon Martin unexpectedly, and if so, which of them initiated the physical confrontation?
> Zimmerman reportedly sustained a bloody nose and a gash to the back of his head, injuries that may bolster his claim of self-defense. But it may also have been the case that Martin, on being followed by a stranger whom he also regarded as suspicious, acted in self-defense when that stranger approached him with a gun. On one of the 911 calls to Sanford police, a voice can be heard screaming for help prior to the gunshot, but it has not been established if that voice is Zimmerman&#8217;s or Martin&#8217;s. A grand jury will attempt to resolve these questions next month, but even if it hands down an indictment on Zimmerman, I fail to see how prosecutors can win a conviction unless they can produce some damning evidence not yet revealed. Some have suggested Zimmerman used a racial slur during his call to police, indicating a possible racial animus that may have influenced his decision to shoot, though it&#8217;s far from clear what he actually said.
> ADVERTISEMENT​
> 
> Trayvon Martin&#8217;s death was tragic, but it is a tragedy that will not find a neat resolution in the criminal courts.


----------



## Steve

I don't know if any of this has been posted yet.  If it has been, please disregard:


http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Q&A Above and the 911 tapes below.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/frames/home_frames.html

911 call history for Zimmerman
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf

I haven't found much on the kid.  I finally found documents with some specific timelines for the evening.  Looks like this all happened at about 7 pm.  I was curious about how late this was happening.  I have also read that the kid had no criminal history and was an A and B student visiting friends of his family.  

I'm waiting for more to come out, but as more information comes out, Zimmerman looks more and more like a bully and a cop wannabe.


----------



## billc

I still find it curious that with all the communication with the parents, we still know little or nothing about the teenager who was shot.  We are finding more and more about the shooter, but you have to sort of look to see that he was an A or B student and that is it.  It is just curious.

another article from msnbc...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46781...s-killed-because-color-his-skin/#.T2vaRXhqOFI



> Several neighbors also made frantic calls, describing the struggle. &#8220;They&#8217;re wrestling right in the back of my porch,&#8217;&#8217; one neighbor said. &#8220;The guy&#8217;s yelling &#8220;Help&#8221; and I&#8217;m not going outside.&#8217;&#8217;
> &#8220;There&#8217;s someone screaming!&#8217;&#8217; another neighbor said. &#8220;I just heard gunshots!&#8221;
> A voice can be heard screaming in the background of one of the calls. Zimmerman has said the voice is his, but Martin&#8217;s family believes it is the cries of their terrified son.



With this from a previous piece from the local news...




> Police said Zimmerman's account, which was corroborated by witnesses, indicates Martin was the aggressor.There have also been differing accounts about whom witnesses heard crying for help that night, but the lead detective on the case says he played a recording of that voice for Martin's father and the Miami man said the voice was not his son's.


----------



## billc

This is video of an eyewitness to the actual fight.  They were outside this guys patio and the witness talks to the reporter and states that martin was on top of zimmerman and zimmerman was calling to the witness for help.  The witness did not know the names of the two guys involved at the time he saw the fight, but said the guy on top hitting the other guy was the guy who ended up shot.  The witness then locked his door, went upstairs to look out the upstairs window and heard the shot fired...

This news piece came out before zimmerman was identified by name as the shooter...the eyewitness interview starts at the 22 second mark...

http://uservideos.smashits.com/vide...martin-the-truth-without-the-media-twist.html

this might be why the self-defense claim was believed by the prosecuter and the police...


----------



## Steve

It's entirely possible that he's just a regular kid.  Not much to know.  I'm still looking for more, too, but he seems to be a good student with no record.


----------



## billc

In the letter section to the above pajamasmedia.com story there was this snippet that I can't confirm but is worth looking into...



> According to Zimmerman&#8217;s statement to the police, he was returning to his truck alone, to go meet police, when he was attacked.  If this is true, it is pertinent


.

Seeing the actual reports would be nice.


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> In the letter section to the above pajamasmedia.com story there was this snippet that I can't confirm but is worth looking into...
> 
> .
> 
> Seeing the actual reports would be nice.



Didn't go through all the links on the site, but I saw some police reports in the links I provided.


----------



## granfire

Steve said:


> It's entirely possible that he's just a regular kid.  Not much to know.  I'm still looking for more, too, but he seems to be a good student with no record.




Dagnabbit...just a regular kid....

Yep, it does happen.


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> MJS, I don't have any problem with your thread or the articles you listed. Since the watch guy claimed self-defense, I wanted to know what the background on the teenager was. Some here on the thread questioned my motives. The articles did not deal with any background on the kid other than what the parents said, and as you have pointed out, and I have seen over my lifetime, what parents say about their children isn't always how those kids actually are.
> 
> I posted this thread to show that this killer in France, who murdered children, was said to have been an apparently nice guy by his neighbors...



No problem.   And yes, likewise, I'd like to know a bit more on this kid as well.  Seems that the shooter is the main focus in the media, and according to what I've read, he has a criminal background.  Interestingly enough, an article in yesterdays paper, had the words, "He took his job too serious" in the heading.  Hmm..go figure..lol.  They interviewed some other kids in the neighborhood who said that the guy was always watching them as well, even though (so they claim) they weren't doing anything.  Again, who knows what the facts are...maybe the kids were..I dont know, but I do feel there're alot of pieces missing.






> which makes my point in my original question.
> 
> I am not in Law enforcement but I have friends and family at both ends of the LE spectrum, the catching and keeping of criminals and I hear the stories. One of my instructors was a police officer who was responding to multiple 911 calls for fires. The calls were intentional false alarms and the caller was a kid. This was back when stores actually had pay phones. My instructor/police officer, went to the store location where the calls were being made from and hid where he could see the phone bank. Sure enough, a kid went to the phones and made a call. My friend called his station to see if a 911 call had just gone out, they reported back that it had and the location was the same phone bank. Well, my friend took the kid into custody and took him to where his mother was in the store and started talking to them. As he is doing this, the kid was crying and an old lady, not involved in the event, walks up and tells the mother to not let the mean police officer bully her child. She had no idea what had led up to the event, and just assumed my friend was in the wrong. The kid had put the lives of people at risk, the fire men responding to the false alarms, and the people on the roads they drove down responding to the false alarms. So, I know these stories of "my son never did anything wrong, and is a good boy," and before they destroy this neighborhood watch guy, it would be nice to know what actually happened.



Ah, my apologies.  I think I was confusing you with ballen. Its a shame that do-gooders, who're passing by, have to stick their nose where it doesnt bleong.  Sadly, this is another case of the cops being damned if they do, damned if they dont.  This old bag bashes the cop, yet I wonder...who is this old hag going to call when SHE needs help?  That aside, again, I'm with you...I'd like to know more as well.  



> Another story. My brother is a LEO in a nearby town. His first day on the job he was involved in a foot pursuit of a suspect, and chased this guy to a house. The guy goes in. My brother gets to the door to go in, and someone, not the suspect, pushes the door closed on him. My brother radioed his training officer, who was just getting to the house and they knock and demand to be let in. Once in there were 3 or 4 people in the living room. My brother and his T.O. ask them where the guy is. All of them say, "the guy isn't here." Since my brother followed him to the door, he tells them that if they don't tell where the guy is, some of them are going to jail too. He then said, where is he, and all 4 of them pointed to the ceiling, meaning he was upstairs.
> 
> The friends and family of victims and perpetrators are not always reliable when it comes to these cases. Add in the race element and it gets worse. Add in the race machine, Al "tawana Brawley" sharpton, who is on his way to Florida as we speak, and the situation becomes even worse.



Agreed.


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> I still find it curious that with all the communication with the parents, we still know little or nothing about the teenager who was shot. We are finding more and more about the shooter, but you have to sort of look to see that he was an A or B student and that is it. It is just curious.
> 
> another article from msnbc...
> 
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46781...s-killed-because-color-his-skin/#.T2vaRXhqOFI
> 
> 
> 
> With this from a previous piece from the local news...





billcihak said:


> This is video of an eyewitness to the actual fight. They were outside this guys patio and the witness talks to the reporter and states that martin was on top of zimmerman and zimmerman was calling to the witness for help. The witness did not know the names of the two guys involved at the time he saw the fight, but said the guy on top hitting the other guy was the guy who ended up shot. The witness then locked his door, went upstairs to look out the upstairs window and heard the shot fired...
> 
> This news piece came out before zimmerman was identified by name as the shooter...the eyewitness interview starts at the 22 second mark...
> 
> http://uservideos.smashits.com/vide...martin-the-truth-without-the-media-twist.html
> 
> this might be why the self-defense claim was believed by the prosecuter and the police...



This is interesting.  I wonder...was Zimmerman in a uniform or plain clothes?  Did he ID himself to the kid?  Is his vehicle he 'patrols' in, marked?  I think this is important.  I ask this because perhaps the victim didn't know or realize who he was.  I dont know about anyone else, but if I was in this kids position, not knowing who this guy was, I'd be running, fighting, etc, as well.


----------



## granfire

MJS said:


> No problem.   And yes, likewise, I'd like to know a bit more on this kid as well.  Seems that the shooter is the main focus in the media, and according to what I've read, he has a criminal background.  Interestingly enough, an article in yesterdays paper, had the words, "He took his job too serious" in the heading.  Hmm..go figure..lol.  They interviewed some other kids in the neighborhood who said that the guy was always watching them as well, even though (so they claim) they weren't doing anything.  Again, who knows what the facts are...maybe the kids were..I dont know, but I do feel there're alot of pieces missing.




Oh dear, back when I was a wee one we lived in an apartment complex with some stringent HOA rules, we had this one person constantly watching us kids, taking pictures and sending them to, heck I have no idea to whom...


----------



## cdunn

MJS said:


> This is interesting. I wonder...was Zimmerman in a uniform or plain clothes? Did he ID himself to the kid? Is his vehicle he 'patrols' in, marked? I think this is important. I ask this because perhaps the victim didn't know or realize who he was. I dont know about anyone else, but if I was in this kids position, not knowing who this guy was, I'd be running, fighting, etc, as well.



Zimmerman isn't a policeman, and isn't registered with any formal neighborhood watch organization. He has no uniform to wear, who knows?, and no - he has no authority to mark his vehicle with.


----------



## Steve

Zimmerman was actually not on patrol.  According to his statement, he was running errands when he saw the kid.  Bill, itsmbecoming clear that you aren't looking at anything that contradicts what you want to find.  I posted links to some actual source documents.  Look at them instead of opinion pieces.  You're posting opinion articles as though they are factual instead of innuendo.   

The links I posted include some police reports, a couple press releases, the actual 911 records formzimmerman, and the actual 911 call recordings.


----------



## Steve

Here.  I'll pretend I'm billcihak for a moment.

[billcihak mode]Gee.  I wonder if Zimmerman was a pedophile.  Why does he follow kids around the neighborhood?  Does anyone know for sure that he's not a pedophile?  Do we have his computer records?  Has anyone even looked for porn on his computer?  There's just so much we don't know about him. [/billcihak mode]** end billcihak mode


----------



## cdunn

Steve said:


> Here. I'll pretend I'm billcihak for a moment.
> 
> [billcihak mode]Gee. I wonder if Zimmerman was a pedophile. Why does he follow kids around the neighborhood? Does anyone know for sure that he's not a pedophile? Do we have his computer records? Has anyone even looked for porn on his computer? There's just so much we don't know about him. [/billcihak mode]** end billcihak mode



It's the difference between justice and justification. Since this shooting was demonstrably unjust, Bill really, really wants this shooting to be justified for some reason.


----------



## elder999




----------



## billc

So steve, you didn't watch the interview with the actual eyewitness who saw the fight as it was happening and then called 911, he said zimmerman called to him for help, that zimmerman was on the ground and martin was on top hitting zimmerman.  I guess that video of the news interview with the actual eyewitness to the event has no bearing on your take on the shooting.  Yes, I read the one report and looked through the 911 calls. 

ON a side note, the national press reported incorrectly on the number of 911 calls made.  They said it was over 40 in the last year when it was actually over the last 11 years.  What else isn't getting reported.

You might want to watch the interview with the actual eyewitness, who answered questions from a reporter before the story became a national event.  The guy says exactly what he saw, not heard, check out the video.


----------



## Steve

Dude.  I haven't seen everything, but I did listen to the 911 calls and read the police reports.  And it's obvious you haven't.

Regarding the 911 calls.  Once again, the actual record is available on one of the links I posted from the city.


----------



## elder999




----------



## ballen0351

Being a racist does not automatically make it not self defense.  Im not saying it is or it isnt. I dont know all the facts in this case.  Based on the crap posted by the news he looks guilty but having been personally condemed by the press after i shot somone and all the lies that were "reported" about me and my incident i dont normally believe what the news tells me.

Elder what point would it sever the police to cover this up?  You seem convinced its some big police cover up to save zimmerman.  Why would the police do that?  What do they get out of the deal?


----------



## billc

Still not looking at the video of the witness who saw the actual fight, not what zimmerman said on the phone.  The father said that the person who was yelling for help was not his son.  The witness who actually saw the fight said zimmerman yelled to him for help.  The word "chase" is being used quite often in reporting zimmerman getting out of his car.  How about followed in order to tell the police where the teenager went.

One sunday on the way to church we saw a drunk driver weaving down the road.  We called 911 and followed the guy all the way to the next town, telling the 911 operator the names of the streets, and the direction we were travelling.  We eventually followed the guy to an apartment complex and saw him park.  We didn't get out of the car, but we did see the squad that was looking for us.  We flagged him down, pointed out the car and then went to church.  

Zimmerman on the tape says something to the effect that "they always get away..." my take is that when the police are called, by the time they arrive, the individual has usually left the area.  He got out of the truck to keep an eye on where the teenager went because the teenager had entered the in between area of the townhouse/condo development, which everyone can see if they watch the video of the interview with the actual witness.  He probably followed the kid simply to be able to tell the cops where the kid went.  Then the kid turned on him and the struggle ensued.

Do you guys actually think he got out of the car to chase down this kid and execute him in cold blood?  That is what is being implied in all the media coverage.

By the way, there was a claim on another site that says NPR mentioned the teen was truant at his high school.   Yeah, I know, a lot of teenagers are, my point is there is still little known about the teenager.


----------



## billc

Elder, the woman on your video didn't see anything, she claims to have heard things.  The guy on my video saw the fight because it was about 20 feet from his backdoor patio, and zimmerman called out to him for help.  For ease of viewing here is the video again, the account of the fight starts at the 22 second mark...



> This news piece came out before zimmerman was identified by name as the  shooter...the eyewitness interview starts at the 22 second mark...
> 
> http://uservideos.smashits.com/video...dia-twist.html
> 
> this might be why the self-defense claim was believed by the prosecuter and the police...


----------



## billc

Here is a look from the L.A. times which also reports the false number on the 911 calls being over 40 in the last year instead of over the last 11 years...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-20120320,0,1508238.story



> Zimmerman's father wrote a letter to the Sun Sentinel that insists that  his son is neither a racist nor guilty of being the aggressor in the  deadly encounter. The statement was





> published in full on the newspaper's website. It reads in part:
> 
> _"George  is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and  friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason  whatsoever.... The media portrayal of George as a racist could not be  further from the truth."_
> 
> The statement goes on to suggest  that the public should be outraged over the "extremely misleading"  portrayal of Zimmerman, and hinted that there are key facts that have  yet to be made public.
> 
> _"The events of February 26 reported in  the media are also totally inaccurate. Out of respect for the on-going  investigation, I will not discuss specifics. However, the media reports  of the events are imaginary at best. At no time did George follow or  confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event become public,  and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the  treatment of George Zimmerman in the media._"



Remember Tawana Brawley and the Duke Lacrosse team...


----------



## MJS

cdunn said:


> Zimmerman isn't a policeman, and isn't registered with any formal neighborhood watch organization. He has no uniform to wear, who knows?, and no - he has no authority to mark his vehicle with.



Yes, I knew he wasn't a cop.  I was just curious as to whether or not he was working for a security company, contracted to patrol the area.  However, going on what you said, he's pretty much what I was thinking all along...a wanna-be hero, yahoo, who had a deep desire to be a cop, but probably could never pass, so in his own ****ed up head, decided to be the Unofficial neighborhood patrol.  Guys like that need their *** kicked!


----------



## granfire

How many times have you called 911 in the last 11 years?

I have called - rather my family - three times in 15.
And I did not live in a gated community, rather a low end part of town....


Sooooooooo
40 calls to 911, not living in a war zone...to me it sounds excessive.


----------



## MJS

granfire said:


> How many times have you called 911 in the last 11 years?
> 
> I have called - rather my family - three times in 15.
> And I did not live in a gated community, rather a low end part of town....



In the last 11yrs?  Hell, I'd say less than 6 if that.




> Sooooooooo
> 40 calls to 911, not living in a war zone...to me it sounds excessive.



Sounds a bit excessive to me too.


----------



## ballen0351

If the 40 in 11 is correct thats really not that many
I wish our neighborhood watch folks would only call 3 to 4 times a year.  I know a few that make that many calls a day.  



granfire said:


> How many times have you called 911 in the last 11 years?
> 
> I have called - rather my family - three times in 15.
> And I did not live in a gated community, rather a low end part of town....
> 
> 
> Sooooooooo
> 40 calls to 911, not living in a war zone...to me it sounds excessive.


----------



## elder999




----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> If the 40 in 11 is correct thats really not that many
> I wish our neighborhood watch folks would only call 3 to 4 times a year. I know a few that make that many calls a day.



LOL, yeah, tell me about it.  Some night, I should keep track of all the 911 calls that come in, to see how many are actually legit 911 calls, or just people that're too damn lazy to dial the routine line, calling in with non emergency stuff.


----------



## MJS

elder999 said:


> View attachment 16211



Gee, what a nice guy. LOL!


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> View attachment 16211



1 arrest 6 years ago and a speeding ticket 5 years ago makes him guilty?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> If the 40 in 11 is correct thats really not that many
> I wish our neighborhood watch folks would only call 3 to 4 times a year.  I know a few that make that many calls a day.





MJS said:


> LOL, yeah, tell me about it.  Some night, I should keep track of all the 911 calls that come in, to see how many are actually legit 911 calls, or just people that're too damn lazy to dial the routine line, calling in with non emergency stuff.




LOL. 'No Mildret, you neighbor can open his drapes to his messy house'

But still...that's a lot of calls.


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> Still not looking at the video of the witness who saw the actual fight, not what zimmerman said on the phone. The father said that the person who was yelling for help was not his son. The witness who actually saw the fight said zimmerman yelled to him for help. The word "chase" is being used quite often in reporting zimmerman getting out of his car. How about followed in order to tell the police where the teenager went.
> 
> One sunday on the way to church we saw a drunk driver weaving down the road. We called 911 and followed the guy all the way to the next town, telling the 911 operator the names of the streets, and the direction we were travelling. We eventually followed the guy to an apartment complex and saw him park. We didn't get out of the car, but we did see the squad that was looking for us. We flagged him down, pointed out the car and then went to church.
> 
> Zimmerman on the tape says something to the effect that "they always get away..." my take is that when the police are called, by the time they arrive, the individual has usually left the area. He got out of the truck to keep an eye on where the teenager went because the teenager had entered the in between area of the townhouse/condo development, which everyone can see if they watch the video of the interview with the actual witness. He probably followed the kid simply to be able to tell the cops where the kid went. Then the kid turned on him and the struggle ensued.
> 
> Do you guys actually think he got out of the car to chase down this kid and execute him in cold blood? That is what is being implied in all the media coverage.
> 
> By the way, there was a claim on another site that says NPR mentioned the teen was truant at his high school. Yeah, I know, a lot of teenagers are, my point is there is still little known about the teenager.



I take alot of calls from people who're reporting possible DUIs, erratic operation, etc.  I ask them where they are, if they can give me a description of the vehicle, and a plate.  I then say that I'll pass it along to the officers, which I do.  I DO NOT encourage anyone to follow or try to keep up with someone.  Why?  Because if I do, and if someone crashes because of it, its MY *** on the line, because I told them to keep going.  No, I never encourage anyone to keep following someone.  If they say they want to file a complaint, I tell them to pull over, tell me where they are, and I'll send a cop to talk to them.  Its now out of my hands.  

Regardless of whether or not the cops dont get there in time...well, a suspicious person walking down the road, isn't a high priority call.  Its not this guys job to get out of his car, to follow anyone or do anything period!  He's nothing more than a wanna be.  He did what Charles Bronson did in Death Wish....took the law in his own hands.  On a sidenote. I enjoy the DW movies with Bronson.  

So to answer this:

"Do you guys actually think he got out of the car to chase down this kid and execute him in cold blood? That is what is being implied in all the media coverage."

Yes, I think he got out to follow intentionally, because he was tired of nothing being done.  Was his intent to kill the kid?  That I dont know, but if he was pissed off enough, yeah, I'd say the intent could've easily been there.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> 1 arrest 6 years ago and a speeding ticket 5 years ago makes him guilty?



Judging by what I saw, I'd say he's a man that gets violent easy, and doesnt respect the law.  



granfire said:


> LOL. 'No Mildret, you neighbor can open his drapes to his messy house'
> 
> But still...that's a lot of calls.



LOL!


----------



## billc

What about the witness and the fight?


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> What about the witness and the fight?


----------



## MJS

elder999 said:


> View attachment 16217



lmao!!!!


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> What about the witness and the fight?



What about them?  If they saw the entire thing, ok, I'd say they were credible.  Now, if they were like most witnesses who record things after the incident is playing out, well, thats not credible to me, IMHO.  Did someone look out and see the kid on top of Zimmerman?  If so, is that all they saw?  Did they see him following the kid, hear anything that was said, etc.?  IMO, those things are key and make play a huge role in this case.


----------



## billc

the witness said he saw one guy on the ground, the other guy on top punching the guy on the ground.  The guy on the ground yelled to the witness for help, but the witness just locked his patio door, and called 911 as he moved to an upstairs window.  As he was going to the window, he heard the gunshot and said that the guy who was punching the other guy was the one who was shot.


----------



## Tez3

billcihak said:


> the witness said he saw one guy on the ground, the other guy on top punching the guy on the ground. The guy on the ground yelled to the witness for help, but the witness just locked his patio door, and called 911 as he moved to an upstairs window. As he was going to the window, he heard the gunshot and said that the guy who was punching the other guy was the one who was shot.




Why do you want the dead lad to be the guilty one and the one who shot him innocent so much?


----------



## elder999

One thing we know is that the sun set at 1744, EST, on Feb 26, 2012. 

Zimmerman's 911 call took place at 1900, EST.

Who can say what witnesses "saw" at what would have been near full-dark? Zimmerman claims he didn't get out of the vehicle to follow Trayvon Martin, but to "check which street he was on," which is pretty interesting, given that it was his neighborhood-but was apparently believable to the police, given it was near full-dark?

And so, on. Witnesses that said the boy was the one calling for help state that they were told by the police that, no, it was Zimmerman crying for help, and have fought to have their altered statements changed to reflect what they actually said.

Intrerstingly, the "stand your ground" law keeps coming up, but no one seems to be paying much attention to Trayvon Martin's ground: the boy was in a neighborhood where he belonged, minding his own business-taking his time and talking on a cell phone. Wearing a hoodie because it was 65 and raining, probably, or maybe, like a lot of 17 year olds, because he just liked to wear the same damn **** all the time. He's followed-and maybe confronted-by a strange man-what's he supposed to do, besides run-or *fight*? If it doesn't matter that Zimmerman is or isn't a racist to have to defend himself, it certainly doesn't matter that the worst thing that Trayvon Martin appears to have done is walk down the street with his head in the clouds-and maybe get suspended from school at one time or another. 

Most tellingly, I've seen a lot of sympathy for the boy's parents, and the boy himself, from a variety of quarters: liberal and white, conservative and black, but pure out hate-filled nutbags like Glenn Beck report that "maybe Trayvon was suspended from school for rape" on their webpage. The people who are defending Zimmerman-often by "questioning" or condeming Trayvon Martin? White, conservative men- of a type who ought to be ashamed of themselves, but their behavior continues to show that *they have no shame, no goddam shame at all.*

In the end, this will all turn out however it's going to: George Zimmerman (whose only photo appears to be a booking photo from that assault on a police officer) will be convicted and/or sued-or he'll get away with it, as it appears the PD wanted. The transgressions of the Sanford police department-real, imagined, past, near past and present-will be brought to light, or buried by the next chief of police, and a 17 year old boy who was only guilty of being a black kid on the sidewalk on a late winter evening, will be just as dead.

Yesterday was my son's birthday. We had a nice, small celebration-just the two of us, late in what was a beautiful spring day in Albuquerque, and I asked him about this case-he said he didn't want to talk about it, that it was just the same story: Florida, and black, and cops in Florida-I have my own "cops in Florida" story that's familiar to some of you, but that was 32 years ago, and I got to go home alive. Interestingly, my son easily looks "white" to most people, and Zimmerman probably wouldn't have thought twice about him "looking up to no good." There, I said it-some people report the guy actually went door to door telling his neighbors to be on the lookout for _"black kids who look like their up to no good_," when, in fact, there are black kids who live there-they may even be the ones that really are "up to no good," or responsible for the neigborhood's crimes, but that doesn't excuse Zimmerman's behavior, and I think further investigation is going to prove that it *really* doesn't excuse the PD's behavior.



Tez3 said:


> Why do you want the dead lad to be the guilty one and the one who shot him innocent so much?



Why are there so few black conservatives like me?


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Why do you want the dead lad to be the guilty one and the one who shot him innocent so much?


This.  I am keeping an open mind about this thing.  We don't honestly know what happened.  But as Tez points out, it seems really genuinely weird to me that billcihak is deadset (no pun intended) on slandering Martin and to almost venerate Zimmerman.  Billcihak, what's your stake in this?  Why have you so clearly chosen a side?


----------



## elder999

Steve said:


> ? Why have you so clearly chosen a side?



Because the fat tub of ****, and the criminally negligent police department just made it harder for well-trained, law abiding CCW holders like myself, that's why I've chosen a side-this guy's crime has nothing to do with legitimate self-defense (he outweighed the guy by 100 lbs., and had a gun) and everything to do with being some kind of deluded wannabe-whether Trayvon Martin attacked him or not.

Hell, some strange guy is following me, and, if I can't run, I might just attack him. Some strange guy who's been following me pulls out a gun, and I'm going to attack him first chance I get, screaming for help the whole time.

*That's* "self-defense."


----------



## billc

Tez, I would like to know more about the boy because of the two people involved, we know next to nothing about him.  This whole thing looks like it is an escalation of errors on the part of both parties.  Zimmerman, for following Martin and possibly martin for confronting zimmerman which may have led to the physical confrontation.  The media here is portraying this as an execution because the teenager was black.  I want to know all the facts, some here just see the race of the victim and assume the execution.  As a leo yourself, coming on the scene of a shooting, do you only want information on the shooter or the victim as well?

It is 7:00 here in Illinois and it is bright as day out, 30 ft. away would be clearly visible.

Why am I looking at this the way I am.  I guess first, I don't see it as an execution.  I see it as errors made by both people that led to an escalation that led to the death of an innocent teenager.  Part of it is the media coverage is sooo lopsided, without the benefit of having all the facts that it makes me more curious about what is not being covered because the race aspect has taken over the situation.   I see that everything about the shooter is coming out, true and made up, and almost nothing about the victim.  Not even the good stuff about the victim.  That makes me curious.  I am following a gut feeling here, that there is something that may be missing.  I believe that zimmerman killed martin, I just think it was a horrible set of circumstances, and that interests me.  At so many points, the whole thing could have been avoided.  If zimmerman had stayed in the car, if Martin had made it to his fathers place, and the unknown factor of who initiated the physical confrontation. Those are part of what interests me in the case in general, but the missing info. on the teenager interests me also because of past crime stories on the news.  YOu see the grieving family complaining about the police shooting a son and they all say he never did anything wrong.  Then the anchor comes on and implies that the victim had run ins with the police.  Later you hear "run ins," is actually an extensive criminal record with violent offenses.  Soo, when there isn't word one about the victim, I wonder what isn't being said.

Oh, just to be clear, I don't want Martin to be the "guilty" one.  I just want to know what actually happened, without being blinded by race to the point that what may actually have happened isn't the important thing anymore.  Remember, the black teenager was shot by a "mixed" race hispanic.


----------



## Big Don

Isn't it amazing that, in this case, Zimmerman MUST be guilty because he is an alleged racist, but, in the murders in France, the FACT that the murderer self identified as a member of Al Qaeda and shouted "Allahu Akbar" while shooting, has NOTHING to do with his motivation?


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:
			
		

> It is 7:00 here in Illinois and it is bright as day out, 30 ft. away would be clearly visible.



Proving, once and for all, how little actual *thought* goes into most of your posts.

On Feb. 26,  the sun set at 6:24 in Orlando, Florida-it was nearly full dark by 7 pm, when Zimmerman's call took place.

Of course, nearly 30 days have passed since then, so the sun rises nearly 30 minutes earlier, and sets nearly 30 minutes later-as any sailor, astronomer, astrologer or fisherman could tell you.:lfao:

And, of course, we have the national abomination known as "daylight savings time," We set the clocks ahead one hour on Mar. 8, so your "bright as day at 7:00," it's really only 6:00-_technically._

Poppa always said not to have a battle off wits with an unarmed man, so we're done here.:lfao:


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> the witness said he saw one guy on the ground, the other guy on top punching the guy on the ground. The guy on the ground yelled to the witness for help, but the witness just locked his patio door, and called 911 as he moved to an upstairs window. As he was going to the window, he heard the gunshot and said that the guy who was punching the other guy was the one who was shot.



So the witness saw nothing that led up to what you just said, other than seeing 2 people on the ground?  This proves my point.  Sure the witness saw part of it, but not the whole thing.  It'd be like coming in 1hr. into a 2hr movie and be expected to give accurate detail of everything in the movie.  You can't.  You can only give feedback on what you saw.


----------



## MJS

Big Don said:


> Isn't it amazing that, in this case, Zimmerman MUST be guilty because he is an alleged racist, but, in the murders in France, the FACT that the murderer self identified as a member of Al Qaeda and shouted "Allahu Akbar" while shooting, has NOTHING to do with his motivation?



I can't recall, but I don't believe I said anything about race in my posts, ie: that Zimmerman was a racist.  However, in a clip Elder posted, I heard some racial comments, coming from Zimmerman.  Perhaps Mr. ZImmerman is in fact a racist.  I dont know, you dont know, and I doubt anyone else here knows for sure.  So, that being said, it would seem to me that:

Zimmerman lives in an area in which he feels is plagued by crime.

Zimmerman has called the police but due to the nature of the call, they are probably not putting it high on the priority list.

Zimmerman, after making numerous calls to the Police, and not getting a Star Trek Warp speed response, decided to be the unofficial neighborhood watch patrol.

Zimmerman saw this kid, and felt he was up to no good, so he called the cops and followed him.

Zimmerman, rather than listen to the dispatcher, got out of his vehicle and walked/ran after the kid.

Zimmerman seems like he's a hot head, judging by the rap sheet Elder posted.  Assault on the LEO.  Resisting arrest.  Sounds like a hot head. 

The kid may/may not have recognized Zimmerman.  I dont know how light/dark it was at the time.  Perhaps this kid was afraid.

The kid may have confronted Zimmerman, perhaps asking why he was following him, who he was, etc.

Did Zimmerman shoot this kid because the kid was black?  I dont know.  I'd say it wouldn't matter if the kid was green or pink or purple, the fact that there was a suspicious person in the area, that wasn't cooperating with Mr. Security Patrol, coupled with the fact this guy seems like a hot head, yeah, I'd say he'd have shot no matter what.

BTW, I dont know the answer to this so I'll ask:  Was Zimmerman cleared to carry a weapon?


----------



## elder999

MJS said:
			
		

> BTW, I dont know the answer to this so I'll ask:  Was Zimmerman cleared to carry a weapon?



CCW holder who took home the 9mm he used to shoot a 17 year old boy.


----------



## billc

Hmmm...since you weren't there elder, you can't say how illuminated the area was or what the witness saw other than what the witness said he saw.  It was off the back door of his townhouse/condo, so there very well could have been a patio light, and it could very well have been light enough at the time when the event took place.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:
			
		

> Hmmm...since you weren't there elder, you can't say how illuminated the area was or what the witness saw other than what the witness said he saw.  It was off the back door of his townhouse/condo, so there very well could have been a patio light, and it could very well have been light enough at the time when the event took place.



Hmmm...and if pigs could fly, we'd all have to carry heavy-duty umbrellas. If dogs had square anuses, they'd **** bricks.

 If you had a girl friend (or maybe a boyfriend?), we might not have to deal with the regular hair-splitting inanities bordering on psychotically delusional, that you try to pass off as posts. 

Poppa used to say something about not bothering with people who can't admit when they're *wrong* so we're still done here. :lfao:


----------



## billc

YOur not going to start writing me poetry again are you elder?  It was weird the first time, any more would just be...creepy...


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:
			
		

> YOur not going to start writing me poetry again are you elder?  It was weird the first time, any more would just be...creepy...



I never wrote you poetry, billi-I wrote poetry *as* you. A failure to grasp that distinction is yet another indication of some sort of intellectual disconnect, I think.

You want "creepy," though? Here ya go:

_My love for billcihak is so great,
my heart melts for him 'til the dusk of day.
He  writes the night  away,
posts,and  masturbates 'til day's dawn. 

His banality is great,
Wondering mind while he yet lives
vomiting is all I do,_ :barf:
_While waiting for the moment, for him to say *"I give."*_ :lfao:


----------



## billc

never mind....


----------



## elder999

Here are some thoughts from  author Steven Barnes blog, he touches on some of the things I said, and some others, and mostly says them better than I can......as usual. :lol:




> I have zero respect for a grown *** man who voluntarily accepts being a Neighborhood Watch officer and chooses to confront a kid he outweighs by 100 pounds, and then wants me to believe that he felt so threatened he had to pull a gun and kill him. AUTOMATICALLY, this guy has lost all my respect, even if what he is saying is 100% true. I mean, if Trayvon was champion of his boxing squad, or a black belt in Gracie Jiu Jitsu, I might have a good laugh about him getting his *** kicked...but there still is no excuse for shooting him, when you can lock yourself in your car. Or just not confront him in the first place, if you are such a wussie that getting a bloody nose gives you internal permission to kill. At the LEAST, he is a disgrace to gun owners, Neighborhood watch people, and men all over the planet. Good lord. And at worst? He was offended that this little black kid was in HIS neighborhood. Followed him, confronted him, and was not given the respect he thought he deserved. Started a confrontation. Either began to lose it and panicked, or killed the boy for disrespect, believing that the local police would look the other way. And he almost got away with it.
> 
> 
> 10) Lastly, and most importantly. What do you say to your children about this? Especially if your children are black? And male? I mean, I have a son who looks just like Trayvon to me. That could have been him, in our housing complex. This **** isn't theoretical at all. And I've had many, many friends, readers, and FB fans ask me what the hell they do. I had a flame war with a white guy who basically said Trayvon should have Yassuh'd his way out of it.
> 
> And what I'm about to say is un-PC as hell, but I hope everyone will understand that it comes from the heart:
> 
> I would be proud for my son to die as Trayvon did. Injustice of any kind depends upon fear, upon backing down. In other words, bullies and monsters count on never running into a warrior.
> 
> How do you make a slave? The same way you make a dog. You get them to forget that they used to be wolves. You capture human beings, and kill anyone who won't stop fighting. Shoot them, stab them, throw them over the side of the ships, whip them to death. Torture them in front of their families. Break them. Cull the later generations of any of that 5-10% of natural warrior archetypes. Convince the others that they are inferior. Why the hell do you think America was so reluctant to allow blacks to fight in their wars? Blacks came back from WW2 with the fascinating, visceral knowledge that whites were no braver or tougher than they were, despite centuries of conditioning to the contrary. That white boys cried for their mommas when their intestines spilled just like everyone else. That they died just as easily. There is no accident that after centuries of oppression, the civil rights era blossomed just one generation of black men returned from Europe knowing how to kill white men.


----------



## zDom

Even if the kid DID overcome Zimmerman and end up grounding and pounding him,

I STILL don't see this as a case of "Stand Your Ground."

I see nothing wrong with Zimmerman keeping an eye on the kid for a bit to see what he was up to &#8212; because he was teenaged boy.

According to FBI stats, most burglaries are committed by males ages 16-24.

Getting out of his vehicle was a line Zimmerman crossed; IMO he forfeited his right to claim "standing his ground" when he took the first step out of his vehicle toward Trayvon.

Trayvon was either in a public street/sidewalk &#8212; in which case Zimmerman could have continued to trail him; OR Trayvon cut through somebody's yard &#8212; in which case he should have taken note of the address and advised his local law enforcement agency. Not his business to confront the boy even if he witnessed him crawling in a window.

Other than someone losing their life which is tragic even if it was a justified case of self defense (which I'm not sure it is),

I am aggravated that some try to make this about race. If it comes out it was, well.. thats something. But I can't stand that some have to assume that just because Trayvon was black, it had to be racial;

I'm aggravated that the media is using this to fuel their anti gun, anti self defense law agenda. (Thanks, Zimmerman, for making things harder on those trying to maintain the right to self defense ... /end bitter sarcasm).

I'm aggravated that some will jump to Zimmerman's defense because of their pro-gun, pro self defense agenda.

I'm aggravated at the phrase "shot an unarmed boy" because just because he was unarmed doesn't mean there wasn't a danger (not saying that Trayvon was dangerous).

I'm aggravated because the black community will demonstrate every time someone of their race is killed by someone of another race. Where are the demonstrations for all the young black men being gunned down by other black men? 

Why does every incident have to be saddled with pile of agendas?



Why do our "stand your ground" laws and CCW laws have to be "examined" just because some ******* uses those as his excuse and his local police back his play?


----------



## billc

I would say that whoever initiated the first point of physical contact crossed the line.  Since Zimmerman and Martin both had claim to be in that grassy area between the condos/townhomes, Zimmerman lived there, and Martin's dad lived there,whoever touched the other guy first crossed the line.  As long as zimmerman maintained a certain distance in a public way, he really hadn't crossed the line.  If he touched martin first, it's all on him.  If, as in Steves material, he said he began to walk back to his vehicle and Martin touched him, then Martin crossed the line.  Does it justify killing him, of course not.  But I think the law would see that physical contact initiation as important.  We still don't have the facts, all the witness accounts, or what really happened, so we will never know for sure...

Now keeping in mind we don't really know anything for sure, this is from Steve's posts...



> _Zimmerman&#8217;s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon._



This may or may not be true, but this is where knowing something about Martin as a teenager comes in.  If Zimmerman is claiming he was going back to his truck, what kind of kid is Martin.  Black, white, asian, hispanic or pacific Islander, race doesn't matter, it is what kind of teenager was he.  

--Did he get into fights at school.
--did he ever bring a weapon to school
--was he a discipline problem

the reason these questions are important is if Zimmerman can show he was leaving the immediate scene, would Martin, black, white, hispanic, asian, indian, be the kind of teennager to try to continue the encounter with physical contact, which may have escalated the situation.  We don't know any of this.

Also, as far as I know, yelling at other people in public is only against the law as far as disturbing the peace is concerned.  They could have shouted at each other all night long..."What are you doing here," "None of your business," and so forth.  As long as no one touches the other one, it is not that big of a problem.  Crossing the line comes from moving forward and making physical contact against the other persons wishes.  Is this an accurate view from a law enforcement standard?  Once again, if the escalation led to a wrongful shooting, then of course whoever is at fault needs to go to jail.

Another point.  Since everyone is calling Zimmerman a wannabe cop, how readily could he, as a wannabe cop, tell if Martin was armed at all.  Could he tell if Martin was carrying a small knife or box cutter.  I would say no.  This goes to the actual altercation seen by the one witness.  When you are cut, how soon do you know it.  I had an instructor who was an airforce M.P. who was stabbed in the back with a knife by a criminal.   He had no idea he had been stabbed, he thought he was punched.

If you go to the martial side of this site, how many martial artists here would be concerned if someone punched at them.  It seems to me a recent thread talked about needing to assume that whoever is punching may have a small weapon, and to deal with it aggressively just in case.  You won't really know till after the fight.  

All things to consider when this goes to court...

Here is an article to consider...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...r-attack-during-shutter-island-screening.html


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> criminally negligent police department


I never knew you were an expert Homicide investigator.  Maybe you should give your expert opinion to the Sanford PD since you know everything about the case. You have seen all the facts interviewed actual WITNESSES and not going off 2 min news sound bites.  Hell You even seem to know the stuff not released to the media to make such a stupid comment.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> I never knew you were an expert Homicide investigator. Maybe you should give your expert opinion to the Sanford PD since you know everything about the case. You have seen all the facts interviewed actual WITNESSES and not going off 2 min news sound bites. Hell You even seem to know the stuff not released to the media to make such a stupid comment.



The chief has "temporarily" stepped down. 

He'd been in office 6 months. He'd replaced Bran Tooley, who took an early retirement as a result of an incident involving one of his officers sons. Justin Collison was involved in a fistfight caught on video tape. Press reports indicate Collison, the son of a police lieutenant, may have received preferential treatment by the Sanford Police Department.


On 16 July 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford Police Department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a Black teen, Travares McGill,* in the back*, killing him. They claimed self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.

At least that case made it to court...


In 2010, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement report noted that Sanford police Officer Christopher McClendon had misused his official position by helping a car dealer recover cars from delinquent customers in exchange for having his own car payments forgiven.


In February 2010, press reports indicated one officer was fired, and another, Ned Golden, Junior, was suspended for two weeks  after sending sexist and racist text messages on a department computer. 


In January, 2011, the same Officer Ned Golden, Junior was assigned to retraining after approaching a car of people at a gas station with a drawn gun. Officer Golden grabbed the car when it pulled away. He then claimed the driver of the car tried to kill him by driving away while he held onto the car. No charges were filed in the case. In August 2011, after an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Golden was fired. The state report recommended he be charged with filing a false police report, official misconduct and assault with a deadly weapon. No charges were filed by the State Attorney's Office.


Officer Golden is the son of the head of the local police union.

They drug tested Trayvon Martin's body, and found no drugs present. They didn't drug test or breathalyze the *civilian* who shot him. They dispatched a narcotics detective to the scene, instead of a homicide detective (yes, they do have two distinct divisions at that P.D., small as it is. Said narcotics detective is said by witnesses to have leadingly questioned Zimmerman, and rumored to be a personal friend of his. They had Trayvon Martin's cell phone, and made no effort to identify him with it-his body sat in the morgue as a John Doe. 

If it smells like_* rancid pork,*_ that's usually what it is.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> I can't recall, but I don't believe I said anything about race in my posts, ie: that Zimmerman was a racist.  However, in a clip Elder posted, I heard some racial comments, coming from Zimmerman.  Perhaps Mr. ZImmerman is in fact a racist.  I dont know, you dont know, and I doubt anyone else here knows for sure.  So, that being said, it would seem to me that:


Race shouldnt be brought into it but anytime Al Sharpton gets to justify his existance it will come up.




> Zimmerman lives in an area in which he feels is plagued by crime.
> 
> Zimmerman has called the police but due to the nature of the call, they are probably not putting it high on the priority list.
> 
> Zimmerman, after making numerous calls to the Police, and not getting a Star Trek Warp speed response, decided to be the unofficial neighborhood watch patrol.


Which happens alot



> Zimmerman saw this kid, and felt he was up to no good, so he called the cops and followed him.


also happens alot


> Zimmerman, rather than listen to the dispatcher, got out of his vehicle and walked/ran after the kid.


Thats where he messed up and that why he prob will be charged at some point once its all figured out.  If your not a cop dont try to act like one.  When the dispatcher says dont follow him then you stop.



> Zimmerman seems like he's a hot head, judging by the rap sheet Elder posted.  Assault on the LEO.  Resisting arrest.  Sounds like a hot head.


Taking a big leap here.  Not knowing the fact behind the arrest.  If I say your under arrest stand up put your hands behind your back and you say "NO I didnt do anything" I can charge you with resisting arrest.  I reach out grab your hand and you pull it away now your rsesisting with violence.  Ive never personally charged anyone for that but at least here by letter of the law I could but its petty so I wouldnt.  I also didnt see any assault charge to go along with the resisting charge so Im not sure how "violent" he actually was.  I also dont know if he was found guilty of the charge at all it does not say on what was posted and if he was it shows it to be a felony charge so Im not sure why he had a gun at all if he was convicted of a felony.



> The kid may/may not have recognized Zimmerman.  I dont know how light/dark it was at the time.  Perhaps this kid was afraid.


Im sure he was afraid not being from the area and it goes back to the above post when he decided to follow the kid he may have crossed the line.  BUT again not know the truth yet its hard to say at this point.



> The kid may have confronted Zimmerman, perhaps asking why he was following him, who he was, etc.
> 
> Did Zimmerman shoot this kid because the kid was black?  I dont know.  I'd say it wouldn't matter if the kid was green or pink or purple, the fact that there was a suspicious person in the area, that wasn't cooperating with Mr. Security Patrol, coupled with the fact this guy seems like a hot head, yeah, I'd say he'd have shot no matter what.


again big leap saying he would have shot anyway.  If he calls the police as much as the report says then its prob not the first person he has followed.  It was perhaps the first person to try to fight him and that may be what led to the shooting.  But again I dont  know facts so hard to tell


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> The chief has "temporarily" stepped down.


Yep?  Not sure how that is relevent to the investigation hes not the investigating detective.



> He'd replaced Bran Tooley, who took an early retirement as a result of an incident involving one of his officer&#8217;s sons. Justin Collison was involved in a fistfight caught on video tape. Press reports indicate Collison, the son of a police lieutenant, may have received preferential treatment by the Sanford Police Department.


AND?  if Tooley didnt work there at time of this shooting Im not sure what it matters to the case but ok.




> On 16 July 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford Police Department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a Black teen, Travares McGill,* in the back*, killing him. They claimed self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.


So now your holding the PD accountable for what non-police officers do?  Also if the case was dissmissed by the court the PD has nothing to do with the court.  There are 1000's of studies about how people get shot in the back.  I can shoot at you and turn and run faster then you can recoginze the threat pull your weapon and fire so by the time you have reacted ive already turned and im hit in the back.  I just went to a class put on by the Force science institute about this.  The have a website with all the studies on this and reaction times its interesting stuff to look at actually.




> In 2010, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement report noted that Sanford police Officer Christopher McClendon had misused his official position by helping a car dealer recover cars from delinquent customers in exchange for having his own car payments forgiven.


Again not sure what that has to do with htis case but ok.  If he did it on duty or used info or equipment from his poice job he should have been fired




> In February 2010, press reports indicated one officer was fired, and another, Ned Golden, Junior, was suspended for two weeks  after sending sexist and racist text messages on a department computer.


 Yep it happens everywhere not just sanford but seeing that they actually fired someone means they at least take it seriously




> In January, 2011, the same Officer Ned Golden, Junior was assigned to retraining after approaching a car of people at a gas station with a drawn gun. Officer Golden grabbed the car when it pulled away. He then claimed the driver of the car tried to kill him by driving away while he held onto the car. No charges were filed in the case. In August 2011, after an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Golden was fired. The state report recommended he be charged with filing a false police report, official misconduct and assault with a deadly weapon. No charges were filed by the State Attorney's Office.


So again he was fired shows again they do not tolerate this crap.




> Officer Golden is the son of the head of the local police union.


Not a very good union if he was fired


> They drug tested Trayvon Martin's body, and found no drugs present.


Yep part of most autopsys that normal.


> They didn't drug test or breathalyze the *civilian* who shot him.


As I said they dont normally do that.  He wasnt charged so you cant force him to take a test.  If he was charged you still cant force him to do it.  I dont think Ive ever seen a murder suspect durg or alcohol tested unless there was a vehicle involved.


> They dispatched a narcotics detective to the scene, instead of a homicide detective (yes, they do have two distinct divisions at that P.D., small as it is


Actually they dont have a Homicide unit.  They have a felony crimes unit and a Narcotics Unit.  If the Narcotics Detective was dispatched then he was already at work.  In this day of no money for OT most small departments wont call in a detective if one is already working.  And if they sent a Narcotics detective to a crime then he prob does handle crimes as well.  Its just the way it is in small departments.


> Said narcotics detective is said by witnesses to have leadingly questioned Zimmerman, and rumored to be a personal friend of his.


Really see that on the news huh?  Or do you have any FACTS to back it up?



> They had Trayvon Martin's cell phone, and made no effort to identify him with it-his body sat in the morgue as a John Doe.


If this is even true how do you know they were not trying to Identify him? however Not sure how not knowing the kids name effects the case they already knew what happened to him.  



> If it smells like_* rancid pork,*_ that's usually what it is.


And you show your predisposed Bias so I wont let the FACTS get in the way of your personal opinions.


If Zimmerman is guilty then he needs to go to jail for the rest of his life.  If hes not then he wont.  Since I have no FACTS ill leave that up to the people that actually do know whats going on and not judge off of a few conflicting news stories.


----------



## billc

Thanks Ballen0351, good post.

And finally, the video of the witness is going to make national news, it just appeared on Breitbart...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/24/Witness-Martin-attacked-Zimmerman

I'm not sure which news show this is from but it is a different report than the original video, but it shows the same witness...more detail may follow...


----------



## Master Dan

Zimmerman was given a permit to carry even though he had priors? Also not a racist? he did use the word Coon to dispatch and other racist words. The issue is not Zimmeran but the police department thier past chief and a prevelant attitude in Florida and southern states how they specifically view black people. 
When I first worked and trained in Florida in 1979 I was shocked to meet white folk that had no problem bragging about going out activly to hunt or intimidate black people with guns. I saw signs that still did not allow blacks to be in areas after sun down and when I moved my yacht to Titusville locals told stories of the state troopers setting fire to a home in a white suburban area subdivision because they did not want blacks living there. 

Zimmerman clearly chose to ignore the orders from dispatch to stay in his car and not follow. So far it looks like the teen was a model student and no criminal record plus he did not live there was just visiting his father for one week. Seems like given the problems of the neighborhood and the active watchgoing on the father would have been concerned enough to give his son a warning or taken him to the store but hind sight is always 20/20?

Zimmerman did not say hey I fell the gun went off he said self defense which means he actively made the decsion to shoot him and not wound him but kill him.


----------



## billc

The latest news report on this witness from the video I found...

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012



> 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.



Since we don't really know what happened, this witness may actually have seen more than was reported in the video I found....time will tell...


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> This may or may not be true, but this is where knowing something about Martin as a teenager comes in. If Zimmerman is claiming he was going back to his truck, what kind of kid is Martin. Black, white, asian, hispanic or pacific Islander, race doesn't matter, it is what kind of teenager was he.
> 
> --Did he get into fights at school.
> --did he ever bring a weapon to school
> --was he a discipline problem
> 
> the reason these questions are important is if Zimmerman can show he was leaving the immediate scene, would Martin, black, white, hispanic, asian, indian, be the kind of teennager to try to continue the encounter with physical contact, which may have escalated the situation. We don't know any of this.



Here:




> Starting a fight? Possibly high on drugs and up to no good? No, friends say that description of Martin from the neighborhood crime-watch volunteer who shot and killed the unarmed black teenager doesn't match the young man they knew.
> "There's no way I can believe that, because he's not a confrontational kid," said Jerome Horton, who was one of Martin's former football coaches and knew him since he was about 5. "It just wouldn't happen. That's just not that kid."
> 
> 
> Since the slaying, a portrait has emerged of Martin as a laid-back young man who loved sports, was extremely close to his father, liked to crack jokes with friends and, according to a lawyer for his family, had never been in trouble with the law.
> The son of divorced parents, he grew up in working-class neighborhoods north of Miami's downtown. He and his father, a truck driver, were active in the Miramar Optimist Club, an organization that runs sports and academic programs for young people. Tracy Martin, the teen's father, coached his son's football team.
> The boy was a swift athlete, according to a friend, and played a range of positions up to about age 14. After he stopped playing, he remained active in the organization, volunteering six days a week from June through November of last year to help run the team's concession stand.
> Martin cooked hamburgers, hot dogs and chicken wings alongside his father at the stand. He loved talking to the kids, asking them what position they played and whether they were good, Horton recalled. He would call the mothers "Ma'am," and if they had a stroller or an item they needed help with, Martin stepped in.
> "Everyone out there loved him," Horton said.
> Martin was tall and lanky  only 140 pounds, according to the family's attorney  and his nickname was "Slimm."
> 
> 
> Martin's parents kept a close eye on him, but they didn't have to be too strict, since he stayed out of trouble, Collins said. However, he had recently been suspended from school for five days for tardiness, his English teacher, Michelle Kypriss, told the Orlando Sentinel. School officials did not respond to a request for comment.
> Martin's father was not happy and grounded the teen for the duration of the suspension.
> Trayvon "knew he was wrong," Horton said.
> 
> 
> Under state privacy law, only serious felonies appear on juveniles' public criminal records, and Martin did not have one. Citing the same law, Sanford police Sgt. David Morgenstern said he could neither confirm nor deny the family's statement that Martin had never gotten in legal trouble.


----------



## billc

Finally, we may have some insight into Martin.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Finally, we may have some insight into Martin.



It's what people-not just his parents-have been saying all along.

Can't be too much of a surprise.


----------



## Empty Hands

elder999 said:


> It's what people-not just his parents-have been saying all along.
> 
> Can't be too much of a surprise.



He's black and was shot to death.  Al Sharpton is also involved.  You should know by now that means he's really a vicious criminal.

You know how "those" people are.


----------



## ballen0351

Master Dan said:


> Zimmerman was given a permit to carry even though he had priors? Also not a racist? he did use the word Coon to dispatch and other racist words. The issue is not Zimmeran but the police department thier past chief and a prevelant attitude in Florida and southern states how they specifically view black people.
> When I first worked and trained in Florida in 1979 I was shocked to meet white folk that had no problem bragging about going out activly to hunt or intimidate black people with guns. I saw signs that still did not allow blacks to be in areas after sun down and when I moved my yacht to Titusville locals told stories of the state troopers setting fire to a home in a white suburban area subdivision because they did not want blacks living there.


So now were going back to the 70's as to why Zimmerman wasnt charged?  Why stop there why not go back to Rosewood in 1923, or even further lets blame Zimmerman not being charged on slavery.  Save your Racist Fla cop crap for someone else Zimmermans not white so by your thought process they should be trying to pin the shooting on Zimmerman to send away a Hispanic then they gt a win win 2 minoritys out of town.



> Zimmerman did not say hey I fell the gun went off he said self defense which means he actively made the decsion to shoot him and not wound him but kill him.


 no he made the decision to stop the threat he shot once not 15 times.  I would agree with your statement if he unloaded on the kid.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> He's black and was shot to death.  Al Sharpton is also involved.  You should know by now that means he's really a vicious criminal.
> 
> You know how "those" people are.


Dont forget the Black Panther Party
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...anthers-protest-20120324,0,1232157,full.story

*Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for capture of George Zimmerman*

New Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad announced the reward during a protest in Sanford Saturday. And when asked whether he was inciting violence, Muhammad replied defiantly: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."


----------



## Empty Hands

Here, let me be _entirely _clear.  When Major Hassan shot up a base, no one tried to find out the personal characteristics of his victims or tried to come up with excuses for Hassan.  When the innumerable stories show up on this site about someone defending themselves or their home from an intruder are posted, no one tries to come up with reasons why the intruder might really have been in the right or interrogate the character of the defender.  When biases aren't involved, a number of the very same people in this thread shrugging their shoulders and saying "how can we really know?" are perfectly happy to pass judgment with the information they have.  There is a lot more evidence for the fact that Zimmerman is a murderer than there is for Obama being a crypto-Marxist terrorist trying to convert the country to sharia socialism.

We _know _beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman sought out this confrontation - this comes from _his own words_.  We _know _based on this fact that there is no possible claim for self-defense.  And yet, some are still grasping at straws, trying to deny the obvious and plain evidence, to make a blameless 17 year old dead kid the one at fault and his murderer blameless.  *Now why might that be?*

The sad thing is, even discussing Zimmerman or Trayvon's character (which is irrelevant even if he was a criminal given the clear facts of the case) are a distraction from the real problem.  Scumbags murder innocent people every day.  It can never be stopped entirely.  The real scandal is the utter failure of the justice system to follow their sworn duty in this case.  They accepted Zimmerman's story uncritically, and never dug any deeper.  Anyone with any sense knows why - the shooting fit into the usual mold and their view of the world, and they had no problem seeing the young black kid as the aggressor, no matter how little sense it made.  Case closed, that's some solid police work Lou.

Of course, this is America, we can never just be honest with ourselves and deal with the problems and the reality as it stands.  So the circus of distraction continues, for reasons which don't really surprise me but I also don't understand.


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> Dont forget the Black Panther Party
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...anthers-protest-20120324,0,1232157,full.story
> 
> *Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for capture of George Zimmerman*



Yes, which means that the family is lying, Trayvon is the reincarnation of Tupac, Obama is automatically impeached and Sarah Palin is now President.

At least come up with something relevant.


----------



## Empty Hands

I will give you guys one thing.  At least you aren't going the Geraldo route and blaming the shooting on the hoodie.  Good work all!


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> Here, let me be _entirely _clear.  When Major Hassan shot up a base, no one tried to find out the personal characteristics of his victims or tried to come up with excuses for Hassan.


There were plenty of excuses thrown out about why Hassan did the shooting and it was made very clear by the govt that it was NOT Terrorism.



> When the innumerable stories show up on this site about someone defending themselves or their home from an intruder are posted, no one tries to come up with reasons why the intruder might really have been in the right or interrogate the character of the defender.  When biases aren't involved, a number of the very same people in this thread shrugging their shoulders and saying "how can we really know?" are perfectly happy to pass judgment with the information they have.


Big difference between someone breaking into your home and a fight on the street with conflicting witnesses one is much more cut and dry then the other.



> There is a lot more evidence for the fact that Zimmerman is a murderer than there is for Obama being a crypto-Marxist terrorist trying to convert the country to sharia socialism.


Well sonce Ive never thought that about Obama I assume thats not addrssed to me



> We _know _beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman sought out this confrontation - this comes from _his own words_.


correct I agree


> We _know _based on this fact that there is no possible claim for self-defense.


Not Correct.  Just because I follow you and try to let the police know where you are does not mean I give up my right to defend myself if Im attacked by you.  Im not saying thats what happened in this case but your statement is false.  We dont know what happened in this case.  



> And yet, some are still grasping at straws, trying to deny the obvious and plain evidence, to make a blameless 17 year old dead kid the one at fault and his murderer blameless.  *Now why might that be?*


Im not trying to pass blame on anyone I just dont agree with the statement of others that the Sanford Police department is a bunch of white racist that are covering up a murder.  If zimmerman is guilty he needs to go to jail for the rest of his life.



> The sad thing is, even discussing Zimmerman or Trayvon's character (which is irrelevant even if he was a criminal given the clear facts of the case) are a distraction from the real problem.


I agree with you 100%


> Scumbags murder innocent people every day.  It can never be stopped entirely.


True



> The real scandal is the utter failure of the justice system to follow their sworn duty in this case.  They accepted Zimmerman's story uncritically, and never dug any deeper.


And you know this how?  You know the entire investigation and everything thats going on?  You sat in on the interviews of all the witnesses?  



> Anyone with any sense knows why - the shooting fit into the usual mold and their view of the world, and they had no problem seeing the young black kid as the aggressor, no matter how little sense it made.  Case closed, that's some solid police work Lou.


Yep Racist Pigs you got it.  What point would an Accredited Law Enforcement Agency Gain over covering this up knowing the national attention its gained?  WHy would a Law enforcement officer risk his livelyhood protecting Zimmerman?  Truth be told most real Officers hate Wanna Be security guards they are a pain in the butt and now you see why.



> Of course, this is America, we can never just be honest with ourselves and deal with the problems and the reality as it stands.  So the circus of distraction continues, for reasons which don't really surprise me but I also don't understand.


Yes and you have made up your mind after reading a few news stories with no real evidence in the case and refuse to wait and see what happens you have blood and you want it now who cares about facts it the LA Times said its murder then by god its murder.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> Yes, which means that the family is lying, Trayvon is the reincarnation of Tupac, Obama is automatically impeached and Sarah Palin is now President.
> 
> At least come up with something relevant.


and Al Sharpton was relevant?


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> and Al Sharpton was relevant?



You know I'm not the one who brought him up...right?


----------



## Master Dan

ballen0351 said:


> So now were going back to the 70's as to why Zimmerman wasnt charged?  Why stop there why not go back to Rosewood in 1923, or even further lets blame Zimmerman not being charged on slavery.  Save your Racist Fla cop crap for someone else Zimmermans not white so by your thought process they should be trying to pin the shooting on Zimmerman to send away a Hispanic then they gt a win win 2 minoritys out of town.
> 
> no he made the decision to stop the threat he shot once not 15 times.  I would agree with your statement if he unloaded on the kid.



No don't go back to the 70's go back 150 years what ever its a cultural fact in the south or other areas a black person cannot walk or wear certain clothes or just go where they want with out risk. Zimmerman being Hispanic is not the issue he was an agressive non black and there was probable cause the police department is a mess and he should have been arrested and leave to a jury to decide inocent or guilty plane and simple.

By the way I wouldn't believe anything FIX news put out if they said the sky is blue its a Faciast Raciist Propaganda outlet. Oh yeh we have a white man behind a door no name being interviewed that Martin was attacking Zimerman and the screaming help me was from him. So when you guys pull a gun you scream help help me uh uh. 

No body is saying pin anything on Zimerman but a weopon was fired a person killed and give a break if Zimerman was black and Martin was white he would have been arrested and probably would not look to good after the arrest?
It just as bad as the entire GOP and all the Tea Party and the whole oposition to Obama is they can't look in the mirror and say it comes down to t*hey just hate having a black man in the White House? Theres an Oximoron for you?
*


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> Yep Racist Pigs you got it.  What point would an Accredited Law Enforcement Agency Gain over covering this up knowing the national attention its gained?  WHy would a Law enforcement officer risk his livelyhood protecting Zimmerman?



More than likely, they didn't "cover up" for Zimmerman - they simply believed him without thinking any more deeply about it.  Racism is a lot more than white hoods and active malice.  It colors the way people think and perceive the world without necessarily even being conscious.

You know, like a bunch of people on an internet comment thread trying to find reasons why a dead kid might have had it coming when they don't do it for other similar situations.


----------



## billc

Wow, perhaps a chill pill empty.  Actually, I don't hate having a black man in the white house, I really dislike having a hard core lefty in the white house.  I didn't like the Clinton co-presidency either and really didn't want the Gorebot in their either.  Race has so much less to do with life today than some of you are ready to admit.  This shooting is full of grey areas, which the left is so fond of pointing out in so many other areas of life, that it is simply not a clear shooting incident.


----------



## ballen0351

Master Dan said:


> No don't go back to the 70's go back 150 years what ever its a cultural fact in the south or other areas a black person cannot walk or wear certain clothes or just go where they want with out risk. Zimmerman being Hispanic is not the issue he was an agressive non black and there was probable cause the police department is a mess and he should have been arrested and leave to a jury to decide inocent or guilty plane and simple.


Well since the States Atty not the police department said not to file charges then the "mess" in the police department is irrelevent.



> By the way I wouldn't believe anything FIX news put out if they said the sky is blue its a Faciast Raciist Propaganda outlet. Oh yeh we have a white man behind a door no name being interviewed that Martin was attacking Zimerman and the screaming help me was from him.


Thats your choice to believe the "witnesses" that only go along with the story you believe and ignore the others that were closer and not out for fame and dont want to be on TV.  



> So when you guys pull a gun you scream help help me uh uh.


He was asking for help BEFORE he pulled the gun trying to avoid needing to shoot the kid.



> No body is saying pin anything on Zimerman but a weopon was fired a person killed and give a break if Zimerman was black and Martin was white he would have been arrested and probably would not look to good after the arrest?


So where back to racist white cop argument even tho the shooter wasnt white?  


> It just as bad as the entire GOP and all the Tea Party and the whole oposition to Obama is they can't look in the mirror and say it comes down to t*hey just hate having a black man in the White House? Theres an Oximoron for you?
> *


Yes thats why 50% of America is againt Obama its because of his Race has nothing to do with his policies were all stupid racist rednecks we can only hope to be as enlightened as you some day


----------



## billc

Here is an article on racial violence in the U.S....

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/23/crime-and-the-numbers-game/



> So I wanted to know the exact figures. The most recent, those of 2009, I could find are on the site of the Department of Justice.
> 
> About 13% of the population is black. About 80% is white (this number includes Hispanics).
> 
> In 2009, 2,963 white individuals were killed by white offenders. White offenders killed 209 black individuals.
> 
> In that same year, 2,604 black individuals were killed by black offenders. And 454 white individuals were killed by black offenders.
> 
> As we see, there is cross-racial deadly violence, but offenders mainly cause victims within their own race; it is so-called intra-racial.
> 
> What about recent decades? Murders surveyed between 1974 and 2004 show that 52% of the offenders were black, 48% were white.
> Of the victims, 51% were white, 47% were black.
> 
> In that period, 86% of white murders had whites offenders, and 94% of black murders had black offenders.
> 
> There may be a hunt by white vigilantes for innocent young black men in Florida &#8212; if it exists, the figures show this is a limited phenomenon. Trayvon Martin&#8217;s death should be thoroughly investigated and the vigilante should be brought to trial in case he broke the law. But such a crime is an exception.


----------



## billc

Here is Zimmerman's lawyer...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/24/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE82N0CU20120324



> This was not a racially motivated situation," Sonner told Reuters on Saturday from his law office, which has attracted a parade of television satellite trucks since it became public on Friday that he was representing Zimmerman.
> "Actually George Zimmerman was a mentor to a single mother with a 14 year old son and a 13 year old daughter and she had nothing but good things to say about his involvement with them, and also helping in raising money for their African American church," Sonner said.
> The lawyer, who is handling his first high-profile media case, said he has represented Zimmerman for a "couple of weeks" but has yet to meet his client face-to-face because it would risk revealing his whereabouts. Zimmerman has disappeared from public view since the shooting gained national media attention in early March.
> "Look out in the driveway," Sonner said, referring to the TV trucks.
> Sonner declined to discuss most details of the case to protect his client, who is under investigation by a state special prosecutor, the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department.
> But he did affirm a police report that Zimmerman suffered a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head. Sanford police said they found no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story of self defense, supported in part by the injuries.
> Sonner said Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose and Zimmerman hit the back of his head on the ground upon falling backward.
> The race issue was inflamed by audio tapes of Zimmerman speaking to an emergency operator in which he uttered what his critics believe was a racial slur while in pursuit of Martin. The unclear audio is open to interpretation but if prosecutors believe they can convince a jury that Zimmerman used the offending words he could be prosecuted for a hate crime.
> "Based on talking with George and his friends, I don't believe he made racial slurs. He was not known for talking that way," Sonner said.
> Though Sonner believes public sentiment is wrong, he understands why emotions are running high.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> More than likely, they didn't "cover up" for Zimmerman - they simply believed him without thinking any more deeply about it.


Or maybe the are professionals that take pride in there jobs and really do try to do a good job.  The looked at all the witnesses and decided to investigate further before charging anyone.  Once charges are brought they are on the clock and have time limits to protect the accused rights.  If hes not charged yet they have time to make sure they do a complete investigation so when charges are brought they have an airtight case.  OR maybe they looked at the case and its not as clear cut as the 45 second sotry on the nightly news makes it out to be.



> Racism is a lot more than white hoods and active malice.  It colors the way people think and perceive the world without necessarily even being conscious.
> 
> You know, like a bunch of people on an internet comment thread trying to find reasons why a dead kid might have had it coming when they don't do it for other similar situations.


Maybe if it were just one person looking at the case but for that to be true you would have to assume the entire 140 people that work at that PD are all Racisist.  I find that hard to believe since Im sure at least 1/2 are not even from Fla or the south.  Good thing about police work is once your certified in a state its pretty easy to go to another and get hired and ceritfied.  Alot of northern Cops get tired of the snow and move south.  We considered it a few years ago but decided not to make the move but I personally know just myself of 6 guys that all moved to fla and are cops all over the state.


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> Or maybe the are professionals that take pride in there jobs and really do try to do a good job.



If that was true, they would have tried to do a good job.


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> Wow, perhaps a chill pill empty.



I'm chill baby.  If Trayvon was my son though and you had said some of the **** about him you've said on this thread to me, my words would be the least of your worries.



billcihak said:


> This shooting is full of grey areas, which the left is so fond of  pointing out in so many other areas of life, that it is simply not a  clear shooting incident.



The only grey areas in this shooting are the ones you insist on creating by deliberate ignorance.


----------



## billc

Here is an article.  It concerns not a  hispanic on black shooting but a black on white shooting, virtually the same circumstances, different states, and different laws, but the system was allowed to work...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/what_if_trayvon_had_been_white_and_the_shooter_black.html



> We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.
> There are many similarities between the Scott-Cervini case and the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case in Florida. In both cases, there had been a spate of [COLOR=#009900 !important]criminal[/COLOR] activity in the neighborhood. In both cases, the shooters called 911 to report suspicious activity, yet chose to confront the unarmed suspects outside their residence and off their own property prior to the arrival of the police. In both cases, the shooters claimed that they felt threatened, and fired in self-defense. In both cases, local law enforcement applied relevant state law.
> Unlike Florida, New York does not have a "stand your ground" law. New York law allows a person to use deadly force to defend his residence from home invasion only as a last resort. It does not allow the use of deadly force to prevent a property crime, and requires retreat if possible. Thus, while Zimmerman was not arrested under Florida law, Scott was tried for manslaughter.​New York law _does _allow a person to use deadly force anywhere, including off his own property, if he feels that his life is in imminent danger and retreat is not possible. Despite the fact that he left his own property, confronted, and shot dead an unarmed white person thought to be committing a petty property crime, Scott was acquitted by a majority-white jury after claiming that the Cervini charged at him, putting him in imminent fear of his life.
> Despite the racial difference between the shooter and the decedent, there were no allegations of racial bias. Scott was not charged with a hate crime. There was no Federal civil rights investigation. There were no white protests. The case was settled for what it was: a tragedy caused by a series of poor decisions on behalf of the shooter, and a split-second decision that will forever be second-guessed.
> In all probability, the actions of Zimmerman in Florida were also based on a series of poor decisions: the decision to follow a suspect after a police dispatcher told him not to, the decision to confront a suspect with a firearm off his own property, and a split-second decision to shoot an unarmed person when Zimmerman felt his life was in imminent danger, resulting in tragedy. But a tragedy is not necessarily a Federal civil rights case - unless the mobs in the streets and their allies in the media and government want to make it one.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...hite_and_the_shooter_black.html#ixzz1q5PseXgE


----------



## billc

Is emotionality really necessary in this discussion?  If you know the participants, sure, I can see where emotion would come into play.  I can see feeling for the tragedy of the situation, an innocent teenager killed.  But really, is the excess emotion necessary to the discussion?


----------



## billc

How about getting emotional over this story from Chicago near where I live...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...gunshot-wounds-rash-of-gang-related-shootings



> A 6-year-old girl was killed Saturday afternoon after suffering multiple gunshot wounds in front of her home in the Little Village neighborhood, one of five people shot within an hour in attacks across the city, police said.
> The girl was on the front porch with her mother, younger sister and a male when a pickup truck pulled up in front of the house on the 3100 block of South Springfield Avenue around 3:40 p.m., and someone fired multiple shots out of the window, hitting the child, according to Chicago Police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli.







This wasn't a tragedy, it was cold blooded killing, and not one word from the race haters Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, Jesse "Beer distributor" Jackson or the Black "Clan" panther party...


----------



## billc

From the above post on the New York shooting...


> We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.



If this case had come up on Martialtalk I would still want to know about the teen accused of burglarizing the car.  What kind of kid was he, what was he really like, not what his parents claimed, but what he was really.  Is he the kind of teen who got into fights at school, did he cause trouble at school, did he ever bring a weapon to school, did he have an arrest record and what kind of record did he have at his school.  This isn't about race but what really happened in that grassy area between the condos.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> If that was true, they would have tried to do a good job.



You got proof they didnt?  Nope you have an opinon based on news clips you have no REAL info on the case.  

 if your such an expert on Homicide Investigations maybe you should go give them a hand.


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> You got proof they didnt?  Nope you have an opinon based on news clips you have no REAL info on the case.



They clearly didn't listen to the 911 tapes. They corrected witness statements and ignored others.  They took an armed man's word that an unarmed kid 100 lbs lighter than him attacked him with deadly force with the only physical evidence for it being a cut on his forehead and some grass stains.  They (at least the Chief) still stood by their conclusions as all the evidence was broadcast nationally.  They have not disputed these points either.  They FUBARed this one, and everyone knows it.



ballen0351 said:


> if your such an expert on Homicide Investigations maybe you should go give them a hand.



I could hardly do worse.


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> This wasn't a tragedy, it was cold blooded killing, and not one word from the race haters Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, Jesse "Beer distributor" Jackson or the Black "Clan" panther party...



There probably would be if a bunch of people like yourself tried to find a way to blame it on the little girl.


----------



## billc

Not blaming the teenager empty.  I just don't think that zimmerman executed the kid because he was black, which seems to be the sentiment of some here on the site.  I think it was a tragic escalation of bad judgement on the part of both zimmerman and martin, that ended up with and innocent teenager getting killed.  Race had nothing to do with the death.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> They clearly didn't listen to the 911 tapes.


Well tell me detective what should we have learned from the 911 tapes?  I listened to the ones the news played which were only small clips and not nearly all of them.



> They corrected witness statements and ignored others.


who did they ignore and correct?



> They took an armed man's word that an unarmed kid 100 lbs lighter than him attacked him with deadly force with the only physical evidence for it being a cut on his forehead and some grass stains.


Not sure what weight has to do with anything Georges St-Pierre is just under 100 pounds lighter then me and if he came after me Id shoot him.



> They (at least the Chief) still stood by their conclusions as all the evidence was broadcast nationally.  They have not disputed these points either.



Why would they? Police departments dont normally provide evidence to prove news stories wrong they have more important things to worry about then what the 6 oclock news is saying.



> They FUBARed this one, and everyone knows it.


Na I dont agree. They very well may have and if they did then whoever involved should be fired and if shown they did it on purpose then they should be charged.  Ill wait and see how it plays out before I start calling an entire Police Department a bunch of Racists



I could hardly do worse.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> Well tell me detective what should we have learned from the 911 tapes?



That Zimmerman sought out the confrontation, even after the dispatcher said not to.  This fact alone demolishes any claim to self-defense.  You can't claim self-defense for a confrontation you start.  That Zimmerman had already decided that Trayvon was guilty of some offense - "these *******s always get away" - further eroding any claim that Zimmerman did not seek out the confrontation.  These two facts alone combined with the shooting would justify arrest and a deeper investigation, a conclusion supported by other non-involved police officers.



ballen0351 said:


> who did they ignore and correct?



 "Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help. 

 The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who  cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and  she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard  the teenager shout for help." LINK

"One of the witnesses who heard the crying said she called a detective  repeatedly, but said he was not interested because her account differed  from Zimmerman&#8217;s."  LINK


----------



## WC_lun

This really isn't as convoluted as it apears.  If Zimmerman confronted the boy at all, he does not have a stand-your-ground defense.  You cannot start an altercation and then shoot the person you started the altercation with, regardless of who wound up on top or who is yelling help.  If the boy's girlfriend is to be believed then the boy actually went out of his way to avoid confrontation, but was not able to.

Any race can have racist views.  Hispanic or caucasion, if Zimmerman did indeed say the word "coon" then there is indeed a racist tone to this story.  Not every violent crime as race as part of the equation.  However, it is foolish to think that none of them are not motivated by race.

In my opinion, the police did not use proper procedure in this case.  I mean really, they did not even take the gun used to kill the kid.  Instead they let it go home with Zimmerman.  That is not very professional at all.

NO matter how this went down, it is a sad preventable killing.  Through Zimmerman, the police had a description of the boy and were on thier way.  There is no reason Zimmerman needed to follow the boy nor make any contact with him.  It was not his job.  A bot is dead and man's freedom is at risk because Zimmerman could not leave the police to do thier job.


----------



## shesulsa

Worth repeating:


Empty Hands said:


> More than likely, they didn't "cover up" for Zimmerman - they simply believed him without thinking any more deeply about it.  Racism is a lot more than white hoods and active malice.  It colors the way people think and perceive the world without necessarily even being conscious.
> 
> You know, like a bunch of people on an internet comment thread trying to find reasons why a dead kid might have had it coming when they don't do it for other similar situations.






ballen0351 said:


> You got proof they didnt?  Nope you have an opinon based on news clips you have no REAL info on the case.
> 
> if your such an expert on Homicide Investigations maybe you should go give them a hand.


Young black men have been shot for less.

Listen to the 911 calls on this case for yourself.

Let's see:

We have one person who repeatedly affiliates himself (voluntarily) with reputable, do-good organizations, has a completely clean record, has good grades in school.

We have another person who appears to be hyper-vigilant (voluntarily), appears to have some concern for his community, who has a police record involving violence and who uses racial slurs.

One of them shoots the other.  Who is more likely to have the intent to do harm?  Logically, the latter.

I just read all 130+ posts on this thread (***except the posts by billcihak that weren't quoted in other posts***) and I'm truly amazed at what I'm reading.  If I were a kid walking in a neighborhood that is not my own and some big dude in a truck were following me, I would attempt to try to get a license plate number and/or description (possibly why Trayvon started walking towards the truck) and attempt to display a confident manner while avoiding the individual.  I would likely cut across whatever I could to escape someone like this who were chasing me in the dark unless he were a uniformed officer, whereupon I would stop, hands out and wait to be approached, but a large dude in the dark? I'd do anything, make noise, scream for help, FIGHT BACK - anything I could.

I've also listened to all the 911 calls on the link I provided above.  It is clear the incident happened in the dark - in the seventh call listed the woman described the scene which was a very short distance from her window. She is completely distraught and her angst audibly increases when she describes a flashlight shining on the shooting victim's body.  One caller to 911 described the larger man as black ... it speaks to the amount of light available at the time of the incident.

It appears to me that there is ample reason to arrest Zimmerman on suspicion of murder.

(***NOTE: I only typed this for clarity and honesty.***)


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> That Zimmerman sought out the confrontation, even after the dispatcher said not to.


Yep that part is true.  


> This fact alone demolishes any claim to self-defense.  You can't claim self-defense for a confrontation you start.


Not True at all.  If Im following someone they dont have the right to turn and attack me and if they do I can defend myself.  One step further if Im in a bar I get pissed and push you I started the confrontation and then you pull out a Knife I can still defend myself from you even if I started the fight by shoving you.  



> That Zimmerman had already decided that Trayvon was guilty of some offense - "these *******s always get away" - further eroding any claim that Zimmerman did not seek out the confrontation.


Still does not mean he wasnt defending himself we dont know the facts yet.


> These two facts alone combined with the shooting would justify arrest and a deeper investigation,


Thats not how things work this isnt Law and order or CSI we dont arrest people first then investigate.  There is a deeper investigation going on now and when the facts are laid out it will be up to the district Atty to file charges or not.


> a conclusion supported by other non-involved police officers.


Non-involved officers dont have all the facts in the case.  Only the investigating officers know whats going on.  





> "Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
> 
> The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who  cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and  she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard  the teenager shout for help." LINK


Well thats because she was wrong.  Even the boys father said it wasint  his son in the tape calling for help.  Also the closest witness that  actually saw what was going on saw Zimmerman yelling to him to help  him.  If he would have came out and helped maybe the boy would still be alive but he decided to just lock his door and go upstairs





> "One of the witnesses who heard the crying said she called a detective  repeatedly, but said he was not interested because her account differed  from Zimmerman&#8217;s."  LINK


Didnt differ from Zimmerman story it differed from everyone elses story.   Sometimes people really want to help and they "Witness" what they think really happened and its just not what happened.  They dont do it on purpose they just want to help but they are just wrong.  Ive had witnesses give me descriptions of suspects that are 100% wrong.  I watched Security tape on robbery once clearly I saw it was a young hispanic male.  Had 2 witnesses tell me it was an  black male, 1 tell me it was a white male , and one told me it was a woman.  None did it to hurt the case but they really didnt witness as much as they though there minds are trying to fill in the blanks so they can help.


----------



## Big Don

The actual shooting may or may not have been racially motivated. This, idiocy, however, is blatant racism:
*Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for capture of George Zimmerman*

*Without a government-issued warrant, the organization opens itself up to civil or criminal liability, a lawyer said.*

                       By Arelis R. Hernandez, Orlando Sentinel Sun Sentinel.com EXCERPT:
                              6:28 PM EDT, March 24, 2012

SANFORD  Members of the New Black Panther Party are offering a  $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood  Watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin.
New Black Panther leader  Mikhail Muhammad announced the reward during a protest in Sanford  Saturday. And when asked whether he was inciting violence, Muhammad  replied defiantly: "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 Zimmerman, who shot  Trayvon in a gated Sanford community on Feb. 26. 
Muhammad said  members of his group would search for Zimmerman themselves in Maitland   where the 28-year old worked before the shooting, employees there told  the Orlando Sentinel. He declined to say when the group would begin  their search.
Muhammad said the group's national chairman, Dr.  Malik Zulu Shabaz of Washington, D.C. is receiving donations from black  entertainers and athletes. They hope to collect $1 million by next week,  Muhammad said.
The party said they would not release the names of  donors nor would they provide documentation to support the existence of  donations.


----------



## Big Don

The New Black Panther Party is to black people what the KKK is to white people. A ****ing embarrassment made up of the worst dregs of society.


----------



## billc

Here is a new idea that demonstrates what this thread is all about.

Some people wear their issues on their sleeves.  It is almost the same as wearing your heart on your sleeve, but in this case it is the issue of racism that they put there.  This case is about a shooting that is claimed to be in self-defense.  the case needs to be looked at in those terms and both the shooter and the victim have to be looked at.  It is that simple.  If there was a screw up in the initial investigation, that needs to be corrected, but wearing the issue on your sleeves isn't going to get to the truth.


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> Here is a new idea that demonstrates what this thread is all about.
> 
> Some people wear their issues on their sleeves.



You are talking about yourself.  Right?


----------



## MJS

Big Don said:


> The actual shooting may or may not have been racially motivated. This, idiocy, however, is blatant racism:
> *Trayvon Martin case: New Black Panthers offer $10,000 bounty for capture of George Zimmerman*
> 
> *Without a government-issued warrant, the organization opens itself up to civil or criminal liability, a lawyer said.*
> 
> By Arelis R. Hernandez, Orlando Sentinel Sun Sentinel.com EXCERPT:
> 6:28 PM EDT, March 24, 2012
> 
> SANFORD &#8212; Members of the New Black Panther Party are offering a  $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood  Watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin.
> New Black Panther leader  Mikhail Muhammad announced the reward during a protest in Sanford  Saturday. And when asked whether he was inciting violence, Muhammad  replied defiantly: "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 Zimmerman, who shot  Trayvon in a gated Sanford community on Feb. 26.
> Muhammad said  members of his group would search for Zimmerman themselves in Maitland &#8212;  where the 28-year old worked before the shooting, employees there told  the Orlando Sentinel. He declined to say when the group would begin  their search.
> Muhammad said the group's national chairman, Dr.  Malik Zulu Shabaz of Washington, D.C. is receiving donations from black  entertainers and athletes. They hope to collect $1 million by next week,  Muhammad said.
> The party said they would not release the names of  donors nor would they provide documentation to support the existence of  donations.



Wonderful.  Just what we need...a bunch of yahoos running around, trying to do the job of others.  Let the cops deal with this!  I wonder...what will they do to Zimmerman if/when they find him?  Shoot him?


----------



## billc

This thread is also a classic example of what Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell and other conservatives say about the differences between liberals and conservatives. 

When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, they think the liberal is wrong.  When a liberal disagrees with a conservative, they think the conservative is evil.  I would add, then the insinuations, name calling and threats start, all displayed in the body of this thread.


----------



## Steve

billcihak said:


> This thread is also a classic example of what Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell and other conservatives say about the differences between liberals and conservatives.
> 
> When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, they think the liberal is wrong.  When a liberal disagrees with a conservative, they think the conservative is evil.  I would add, then the insinuations, name calling and threats start, all displayed in the body of this thread.



LOL...  I could produce numerous examples of conservatives calling liberals evil.  Just as I can find numerous examples of liberals calling conservatives evil.  

Surely, as an adult, you see this for what it is, billcihak.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> This thread is also a classic example of what Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell and other conservatives say about the differences between liberals and conservatives.
> 
> When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, they think the liberal is wrong. When a liberal disagrees with a conservative, they think the conservative is evil. I would add, then the insinuations, name calling and threats start, all displayed in the body of this thread.







> You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep-*Navajo proverb*


----------



## Josh Oakley

billcihak said:


> This thread is also a classic example of what Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell and other conservatives say about the differences between liberals and conservatives.
> 
> When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, they think the liberal is wrong.  When a liberal disagrees with a conservative, they think the conservative is evil.  I would add, then the insinuations, name calling and threats start, all displayed in the body of this thread.



Oh come on, now. Seriously? That stuff happens on both sides of the fence.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## blackswordshinobi

i have say i where hoodys  never lable  hoodlum hum i live ny what world comeing too sorry my spell not to clear


----------



## billc

Trayvon Maritin, is he 6' 2" tall?   The picture I keep seeing makes out like he was way smaller.  That's three inches taller than I am...

No, that doesn't mean he deserved to be shot, it does make him a much larger individual than the media is portraying him as...

from victor davis hanson...

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/beware-of-the-mob/



> The initial moblike news (in this regard, Fox News&#8217;s Shepard Smith was especially culpable in whipping up frenzy when he did not have the evidence to support his allegations) that a white, Germanic-named vigilante ran down and executed a small African-American child (at least Mr. Martin seemed so from his adolescent photos in the press) eating candy while strolling in an exclusive gated community is not quite the entire story. At least it has morphed into an account of an excitable, gun-carrying Hispanic neighborhood-watch volunteer, in a mixed community, prompting (?) a fist fight with an unarmed 17-year-old, 6&#8217;2&#8221; youth in a hoodie. Mr. Zimmerman apparently lost the struggle, and then pulled out a gun and fired &#8212; even as the narrative seemed to change with new information every day. The case is not helped by presidential editorializing that now, after the beer summit and Sandra Fluke, seems a gambit to divert attention from $4 a gallon gas and 8% plus unemployment (17% in Fresno County).
> The Trayvon Martin tragedy is not over. We do not know all the facts; bad judgment, racism, and ill-intent may well have led to manslaughter or even second-degree murder or, then again, in theory, self-defense, but to speculate about any such charges without evidence is to become mob-like. My own view is that carrying a weapon requires greater forbearance, but I was not there and still have no idea what transpired. As I write this, the account will be out-of-date by tomorrow&#8217;s disclosures. What we are left with are no rules of national anguish: When ten African-Americans are murdered by other African-Americans in a single weekend, is it news or not news? When the occasional African-American murders a white person, as in a recent car-jacking, is it a sign of something the nation must note? When an Hispanic shoots an African-American, is it news to the degree he has a European name, but had he been Jorge Martinez with an Anglo mother, it would not have been news?
> The role of a president is to rein in the mob, not to unleash it. The latter is what community organizers do;


----------



## MJS

I've said it before, I'll say it again....race aside, Zimmerman is a hot headed, wannabe idiot.  All of this could've been avoided if he simply listened to the dispatcher.  Instead of following the kid, which probably was the main factor for the kid to hit Zimmerman, if in fact that's what happened, he should've just got a description, a direction of travel, etc, and waited for the cops.  

If we were in this situation, out walking at night, and someone started following us, what would we do?  Keep walking?  Start running?  Stop, turn and ask the person what the hell they're doing?  If Trayvon did in fact turn around, to confront Zimmerman, I wonder...what was Zimmermans reaction?  I"d wager that he wasnt in a talking mood.  If that was the case, can you blame Treyvon, if in fact he was hitting, fighting, etc, with Zimmerman?


----------



## MA-Caver

What really bothers me about it... watching the news today, they interviewed the witnesses... finding an impartial jury is going to be tough. I mean this case WILL go to trial... won't it?


----------



## shesulsa

MJS said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again....race aside, Zimmerman is a hot headed, wannabe idiot.  All of this could've been avoided if he simply listened to the dispatcher.  Instead of following the kid, which probably was the main factor for the kid to hit Zimmerman, if in fact that's what happened, he should've just got a description, a direction of travel, etc, and waited for the cops.


I couldn't agree more. He seemed hell-bent on his mission and he is NOT a COP.



> If we were in this situation, out walking at night, and someone started following us, what would we do?  Keep walking?  Start running?  Stop, turn and ask the person what the hell they're doing?  If Trayvon did in fact turn around, to confront Zimmerman, I wonder...what was Zimmermans reaction?  I"d wager that he wasnt in a talking mood.  If that was the case, can you blame Treyvon, if in fact he was hitting, fighting, etc, with Zimmerman?



I've already stated that if I were out and about in the dark in a neighborhood that was not mine and saw some big dude sans uniform with a truck tracking me, I can't say I wouldn't tell him to leave me the f**k alone, run, turn and fight when he caught up to me - hell, I might even initiate the contact.  

And that's if he didn't call me a Cracker.


----------



## shesulsa

MA-Caver said:


> What really bothers me about it... watching the news today, they interviewed the witnesses... finding an impartial jury is going to be tough. I mean this case WILL go to trial... won't it?



I hope to hell so.


----------



## Master Dan

So this skinny little teenager turned around and chased the full grown man with a gun who supposubly decided to head back to his car and attacked him with intent to kill that he had to shout help me help me even though he had a gun??????? If that is true then we truly need to ban the sale of Skittles over the counter to all children. My wife freaked because that would have been her boy hoody and skittles all the time.

No body is saying pin anything on anybody but common sense would have let a jury decide on the facts not just shield the killer regardless of who or what he is. CNN just had one black and one white guest on and as in most cases of all white conservative commentators they do not want to hear anything that would even suggest there could have been any wrong doing on the part of Zimmerman or charges filed that would sort it out? The black anchorman even had to jump in and say stop common sense would require more than what was done by the Police. Wasn't that long ago the city police in Portland got in trouble for dumping dead oposums on certain door steps and when they got a severe repremand for killing a black at a convinience stoor by choking and compressing his chest they printed T shirts with smoke em don't choke em.

Does that condem all law enforcemetn of course not but is abuse there and happens related not only to physical action but also in attitude in how investigations are conducted YES nation wide given that a sensative knowledgalbe department would have charged Zimmerman on probable cause and left it to a jury. Anyone who thinks that would not have happened if Martin was white and Zimmerman black cannot admit to thier onw racist bias period and I and other could care less if you don't agree don't wast your time just be honest put your white sheet on and burn a cross I can respect that at least its honest.


----------



## ballen0351

Dan  It wasnt the police departments choice not to charge him.  The States Atty is the one that said not to charge him.  The states atty is the highest lvl law enforcement in the local system just like eric holder is the highest lvl law enforcement offical in the federal system.  If they say dont charge him then you dont charge him.  There is alot more to the story then you are getting on CNN.  But you keep blaming the racist cops if it makes you feel better


----------



## MJS

Oh my...a new twist to the story.
http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to  the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News.Zimmerman had claimed he had called police about Martin, whom he found suspicious, then went back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him.
The new information is the most complete version yet of what Zimmerman claims happened on the night of Feb. 26 when he shot and killed the teenager.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So far my opinion is self defense.   But I'm only following it marginally right now.


----------



## billc

Well, the  5 day suspension for truancy, is that in addition to the now revealed 10 day suspension for bringing pot to school?

Again, no, I don't think that because he brought pot to school that he should have been killed.  However, it does mean that his record at school needs more examining.

As far as this goes, the heart of the matter is who touched the other guy first?  If Zimmerman drew his pistol and threatened Marting first, that counts as initiating the escalation and he should go to jail.  If he touched martin first, pushed, touched, or hit, then again he needs to go to jail.  If Martin initiated first contact, pushed, shoved, or hit, then the self-defense argument is more relevant.  It doesn't matter if zimmerman followed martin, it matters who touched who first...

Also, as to the relative size of the individuals...



> While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable  homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an  adult in death.
> 
> Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds.


----------



## shesulsa

Hmmm.  I dunno.  I still say if someone like this were trying to confront me, I'd fight hard.  If Trayvon fought the man ... well, it is a risky move. 

I wonder how many people here would, at 17, allowed themselves to be followed, pursued by a stranger in the dark and questioned by this person without serious suspicion or feeling of threat?





MJS said:


> Oh my...a new twist to the story.
> http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html
> 
> George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to  the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News.Zimmerman had claimed he had called police about Martin, whom he found suspicious, then went back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him.
> The new information is the most complete version yet of what Zimmerman claims happened on the night of Feb. 26 when he shot and killed the teenager.


----------



## ballen0351

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from behind. The two exchanged words, and Martin decked him with a punch to the nose and began beating him. He told police he shot Martin in self-defense. Witnesses said they heard someone cry out in distress, some of them telling NBC News and other news organizations that it was Martin. But police told the Sentinel their evidence indicated it was Zimmerman.
One witness told police he saw Martin pounding Zimmerman on the ground. This witness was certain it was Zimmerman who was crying for help, the Sentinel reported. 
When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, and he had a swollen lip and bloody lacerations to the back of his head, the newspaper reported. Police said Zimmerman wasn't badly injured and didnt seek treatment until the next day. 
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...e-indicates-trayvon-martin-attacked-zimmerman

So he was walking away approached from behind and attacked.  Might be why nobody was arrested yet. 3 sides to every story Zimmermans, Martins/News, and the Truth


Also as for the Pictures the Media Uses I wonder if they are just a little Bias


----------



## billc

From the cell phone call to the girlfriend, it sounds like martin initiated the conversation with zimmerman.  It might be at that point that zimmerman may have turned and began going back to his car.  

Again, no, I do not think that this means that martin should have been killed.

It all goes back to first physical contact...or if, and I say if, zimmerman presented his weapon before any other physical contact...

The school information, the new pictures, that is what my original question about not hearing anything about the teenager was about.  Still, he shouldn't have been killed...


----------



## billc

New wrinkle, Jesse Jackson's people are saying Martin was shot in the back of the head...is this true?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/26/Martin-Back-Head



> [h=2]According to sources in the Memphis, Tennessee area, local FOX 13 insider Joseph Kyles reported from Sanford, Florida that Martin was shot in the back of the head. As the anchor, Greg Coy, tweeted, &#8220;This could change invest[igation].&#8221;[/h]Who is Joseph Kyles? Kyles is a local board member of Rainbow Push, Jessie Jackson&#8217;s civil rights group. Why is this relevant? Because Jackson has reportedly been announcing at his speeches that &#8220;[George] Zimmerman told police he had killed him. Shot him in the back of the head in self-defense&#8221; &#8211; although for some reason, the paper reporting Jackson&#8217;s statements, the _Orlando Sentinel_, has pulled the remarks (though the line is still available via Google Cache).
> So either Kyles has information that nobody else does, or Jackson&#8217;s talking points are going around to his affiliated organizations. If the former, this could be a serious change in the nature of the case. If the latter, Jackson and those who are parroting him must stop spreading unsubstantiated information immediately &#8211; such behavior clouds the case itself, and drives public anger without evidence.


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain,



Do we have confirmation of that? I thought he wasn't listed as any kind of official watchperson?


----------



## Master Dan

ma-caver said:


> what really bothers me about it... Watching the news today, they interviewed the witnesses... Finding an impartial jury is going to be tough. I mean this case will go to trial... Won't it?



what case no arrest lost evidence


----------



## Master Dan

ballen0351 said:


> Dan  It wasnt the police departments choice not to charge him.  The States Atty is the one that said not to charge him.  The states atty is the highest lvl law enforcement in the local system just like eric holder is the highest lvl law enforcement offical in the federal system.  If they say dont charge him then you dont charge him.  There is alot more to the story then you are getting on CNN.  But you keep blaming the racist cops if it makes you feel better



ITS NOT A COP ITS A DEPARTMENT, And Attorneys Prosecutors ect make thier charge decisions based on evidence and and complete evidence was not collected including testing of clothing. The attorney could have taken the fire from this issue and shown that all due process was being done, Now its getting bigger and now Bounty money is being raised to get Zimmerman between that and potetial riots how much will that cost? though with lack of proper invesitgation and controling the chain of evidence Zimmerman may have gotten off which would possibly enrage the black public even more??

Police departments have a public information officer for a reason and even if Zimmerman was totally inocent the departments handling of a volitile situation from its release of information including 911 tapes have poured bacon on an already hot fire?

Being a MA person perception is 100% of reality not the facts and the PD created a perception of cover up or looking the other way cows out of the barn hard to get back in????????????


----------



## Big Don

Remember this:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



This was attacked by damn near everyone as racist.
Isn't this, then, racist as well?



 And here&#8217;s the original pic&#8230;


----------



## Big Don

Why, by the way, is Zimmerman refferred to as a "WHITE HISPANIC"?
His color is about the same as Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor was ALWAYS described as LATINA, not "White Latina" 
But, no, there is no racism in the coverage of this case...


----------



## Big Don




----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Hmmm. I dunno. I still say if someone like this were trying to confront me, I'd fight hard. If Trayvon fought the man ... well, it is a risky move.
> 
> I wonder how many people here would, at 17, allowed themselves to be followed, pursued by a stranger in the dark and questioned by this person without serious suspicion or feeling of threat?



I agree Geo.  What I find interesting is how some people are using the size differences, almost as a justification for the shooting.  Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that all of these supposed eye witnesses, saw everything from start to finish.  Was there anyone who saw the entire thing?  My point is...sure, someone may've looked out their window and saw Treyvon on top of Zimmerman.  Just like you said Geo....if I was in this kids shoes, and someone was following me, yeah, I'd be running, screaming, and if need be, fighting as well.  But, my point is..unless the witness saw the whole thing, then IMO, they're not much of a witness, because they've only got part of the story.  

Additionally, I have to disagree with his use of force.  IMHO, drawing a gun on an unarmed person, despite size, is a bit of an overkill.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Do we have confirmation of that? I thought he wasn't listed as any kind of official watchperson?



Thats what I heard as well...that he was the unofficial block watch.  Translation:  He was a ****ing wannabe, yahoo, who never could and never will be a cop, so he had to do the next best thing.  Christ, I wonder if he didn't have a light and siren in his vehicle. LOL.


----------



## billc

More speculation on Trayvon Martin which needs to be confirmed but would definitely require a closer look.  His twitter account, his high school detentions, and his attitude may be different than first portrayed in the media.  I heard Michael Gallagher's show on the way home tonight, and he mentioned some things that need to be looked at.

Again, I do not think he should have been killed.  The line that was crossed was crossed by whoever touched the other guy first.  I also include in this if Zimmerman pointed his pistol or drew it and used it to intimidate.  That would be crossing the line as well.  At this point we do not know exactly what happened.  Both need to be looked at.


----------



## billc

Here is a story about the shooting at Mississippi state universtiy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/mississippi-state-university-shooting_n_1377810.html


> Late Saturday, 21-year-old John Sanderson of Madison, Miss., was shot to death in a Mississippi State University dormitory, though the killing appears to be isolated, according to university officials.



Let me be the first to say, I would like to know more about this guy and what he was like.  Why?  It may explain who and why he was killed.


----------



## WC_lun

There is only one thing we need to know to sort this out, who initiated contact.  If Zimmerman, against advice of the 911 operator initiated it, then as a result of initiating contact killed him, that is murder.  If Martin initiated contact and was killed as a result of that, then it was self-defense.  It doesn't matter if Martin was suspended for pot or Zimmerman aussalted a cop.  It is irrelevant and is being used for fodder by the news corporations and some polititions.  In the end, a young man lost his life and that is a tragedy.


----------



## shesulsa

MJS said:


> Thats what I heard as well...that he was the unofficial block watch.  Translation:  He was a ****ing wannabe, yahoo, who never could and never will be a cop, so he had to do the next best thing.  Christ, I wonder if he didn't have a light and siren in his vehicle. LOL.


Knighthawk Protection in Brush Prairie, Washington got in trouble for that - had all the same equipment as police officers but were a security firm. Even the cars had all the gear. Had to remove some expensive equipment! So ... don't laugh - it happens!



WC_lun said:


> There is only one thing we need to know to sort this out, who initiated contact.  If Zimmerman, against advice of the 911 operator initiated it, then as a result of initiating contact killed him, that is murder.  If Martin initiated contact and was killed as a result of that, then it was self-defense.  It doesn't matter if Martin was suspended for pot or Zimmerman aussalted a cop.  It is irrelevant and is being used for fodder by the news corporations and some polititions.  In the end, a young man lost his life and that is a tragedy.



Would you call pursuit an initiation?  Because I would.  It clearly could be misconstrued as malicious intent. And ... I'm not so sure about initiating contact. That isn't even enough for school fights.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from behind. The two exchanged words, and Martin decked him with a punch to the nose and began beating him. He told police he shot Martin in self-defense. Witnesses said they heard someone cry out in distress, some of them telling NBC News and other news organizations that it was Martin. But police told the Sentinel their evidence indicated it was Zimmerman.
> One witness told police he saw Martin pounding Zimmerman on the ground. This witness was certain it was Zimmerman who was crying for help, the Sentinel reported.
> When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, and he had a swollen lip and bloody lacerations to the back of his head, the newspaper reported. Police said Zimmerman wasn't badly injured and didnt seek treatment until the next day.
> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...e-indicates-trayvon-martin-attacked-zimmerman
> 
> So he was walking away approached from behind and attacked. Might be why nobody was arrested yet. 3 sides to every story Zimmermans, Martins/News, and the Truth
> 
> 
> Also as for the Pictures the Media Uses I wonder if they are just a little Bias



You do know that that's not Trayvon Martin, dontcha?




> Over the weekend, a picture began circulating that claimed to show Martin in a less-than-flattering light: shirtless, sagging pants, and giving the finger to the camera.
> The image quickly circulated across blogs and websites, with many claiming it as evidence that Martin was not as innocent as family and supporters claimed, as well as alleging media bias.
> There is one problem to that claim: the picture is not Trayvon Martin.
> Or at the very least, he's not the one who made worldwide headlines after his death. The Facebook page the picture came from appears to belong to a different Trayvon Martin, whereas the image is nowhere to be found on the slain teen's profile


----------



## MJS

WC_lun said:


> There is only one thing we need to know to sort this out, who initiated contact.  If Zimmerman, against advice of the 911 operator initiated it, then as a result of initiating contact killed him, that is murder.  If Martin initiated contact and was killed as a result of that, then it was self-defense.  It doesn't matter if Martin was suspended for pot or Zimmerman aussalted a cop.  It is irrelevant and is being used for fodder by the news corporations and some polititions.  In the end, a young man lost his life and that is a tragedy.



If your opinion, would you say that even if Martin hit Zimmerman first, that drawing a gun, on an unarmed kid, is excessive force?  I think we all know if this were a LEO and a citizen, and the LEO shot the unarmed citizen, all hell would break lose.  This, IMO, is no different.  Granted, Zimmerman is not a cop, as thats been pointed out already, however, I still say that it was too much force.  If Martin pulled a weapon, be it a knife, gun, rock or stick from the ground, then, I might see some justification.  However, I would be interested in knowing the laws for the area they were in.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Knighthawk Protection in Brush Prairie, Washington got in trouble for that - had all the same equipment as police officers but were a security firm. Even the cars had all the gear. Had to remove some expensive equipment! So ... don't laugh - it happens!



Oh I can imagine.  I've heard some Vol. Firefighters talking about sirens in their personal vehicles.  Which of course is a no-no.  Hey, I fully understand they're the ones I'm going to call Godforbid I need fire/medical help.  But, IMO, having access to a siren, is giving them the OK to act like an official emergency vehicle...something that they're not. 





> Would you call pursuit an initiation?  Because I would.  It clearly could be misconstrued as malicious intent. And ... I'm not so sure about initiating contact. That isn't even enough for school fights.



I would too.  I'd say that even following from a distance, while in your vehicle, could be deemed initiation, but IMO, I'd have rather seen that, vs. what he did, obviously.


----------



## WC_lun

If Zimmerman put hands on Martin first then he is responsible.  If someone I do not know puts hands on me, I am going to reacte.  That is self-defense.  If Martin struck out at Zimmerman because he was just following him, that was not self-defense.  While I do not think the use of a firearm in that instance is okay, it would fit within Florida's law.  

From what I have been reading, the no retreat law has been taken advantage of, resulting in killings that bring no charges.  You shouldn't be able to kill someone because they are defending themselves.  I don't know that is the case here. It seems that is what the police need to investigate.


----------



## punisher73

Newest story says that police have witnesses that stated that Zimmerman was attacked first.  The report has been turned over to special prosecutor's.

On a weird side note story.  Trayvon's mom is trying to trademark his name.


> http://now.msn.com/now/0326-trayvon-martin-trademark.aspx


----------



## CanuckMA

WC_lun said:


> If Zimmerman put hands on Martin first then he is responsible.  If someone I do not know puts hands on me, I am going to reacte.  That is self-defense.  If Martin struck out at Zimmerman because he was just following him, that was not self-defense.  While I do not think the use of a firearm in that instance is okay, it would fit within Florida's law.



I disagree. Self defense can be claimed if you are in fear for your safety. If I'm walking down the street and someone is following me like that, I'd fear.


----------



## ballen0351

CanuckMA said:


> I disagree. Self defense can be claimed if you are in fear for your safety. If I'm walking down the street and someone is following me like that, I'd fear.



Depends on where you are.  Maryland has Duty to Retreat Laws.  Your required to run away if you can.  If the State can prove you had the ability to run then no self defense for you.  We also have no self defense laws on the books.  Our only self defense comes from past case law.  And now after this case I dont see us getting any self defense laws here anytime soon in face I see them taking away any self defense we already had.  The State Congressional Black Caucus is asking the Federal Govt to look into Fla's Self Defense laws.  I have no clue why the State of Maryland thinks it has any right to question other states laws but apparently they think they do.  They all wore hoodies to the state house and then help press conf. demanding action.


----------



## ballen0351

punisher73 said:


> On a weird side note story.  Trayvon's mom is trying to trademark his name.



I read that  it was strange to me too but Id rather his mom make money then Al Sharpton.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> You do know that that's not Trayvon Martin, dontcha?


Nope the news said it was him and if people can use the news to say an entire Police Department is racist and covered up a murder and it must be true because the news said it was then thats him I dont care about your facts since nobody else seems to care about them with regard to this case.  Besides I heard a witness say it was from his uncles facebook page but he was just playing with the camera hes not really a thug it was halloween and he was on his way to church to help feed the homeless.  but the Racist cops told the witness he was wrong so he went home.


----------



## MJS

WC_lun said:


> If Zimmerman put hands on Martin first then he is responsible.  If someone I do not know puts hands on me, I am going to reacte.  That is self-defense.  If Martin struck out at Zimmerman because he was just following him, that was not self-defense.  While I do not think the use of a firearm in that instance is okay, it would fit within Florida's law.
> 
> From what I have been reading, the no retreat law has been taken advantage of, resulting in killings that bring no charges.  You shouldn't be able to kill someone because they are defending themselves.  I don't know that is the case here. It seems that is what the police need to investigate.



I googled Florida Self Defense Laws.  A bunch of stuff popped up, this being something that I thought was interesting:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2702685/floridas-controversial-self-defense.html



> &#8220;If he was attacked, he can stand his ground,&#8221; said retired Miami-Dade prosecutor David Waksman, who is not involved in the case. &#8220;But if police say back off and we&#8217;ll take care of it, he&#8217;s not covered by the law.&#8221;



And this is what happened.  The dispatcher told him not to follow.  Supposedly he did anyways, yet in other stories, it said he was walking back to his vehicle when Martin approached from behind.  Gee, isn't it amazing how stories change from minute to minute.  



> Florida&#8217;s controversial self-defense law eliminated a citizen&#8217;s duty to retreat before using deadly force to confront an attacker. Police and prosecutors statewide have derided the measure, saying the law fosters a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality and gives criminal a pass on facing justice.



Yup, this sounds exactly like what happened.



> Last month, however, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch denied the immunity claim of a Florida International University student who fatally stabbed an unarmed football player during a brawl.
> 
> The law &#8220;does not justify the use of deadly force in response to threats or shows of force of any and ever kind. In ordinary circumstances a push or a slap may be met with a push or a slap, or perhaps a punch &#8212; but not with a bullet,&#8221; Hirsch said.



Exactly!  I'm sorry, but I still can't buy into the fact Zimmerman was in the right to shoot this kid.  Even if he punched him, so what.  Again, imagine if a dirtbag on the street punched a cop, and the cop pulls his gun and blows the guy away.  Holy ****, and if the cop got off, there'd be riots in the street!
​


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> And this is what happened.  The dispatcher told him not to follow.  Supposedly he did anyways, yet in other stories, it said he was walking back to his vehicle when Martin approached from behind.  Gee, isn't it amazing how stories change from minute to minute.


Thats why you cant jump to judgment without all the facts which is what everyone that claimed Coverup has done.  Reporters dont have all the facts and what they are missing they fill in with speculation.  My own personal shooting I was a victim of this but since the person I shot was white it never made national news only local stuff but the stories the news put out were 100% wrong.




> Exactly!  I'm sorry, but I still can't buy into the fact Zimmerman was in the right to shoot this kid.  Even if he punched him, so what.  Again, imagine if a dirtbag on the street punched a cop, and the cop pulls his gun and blows the guy away.  Holy ****, and if the cop got off, there'd be riots in the street!
> ​


Again your jumping to conclusions without the full story.  If all the kid did was punch him and stop then your right but at least one story so far has him banging Zimmermans head into the ground and I read one story where his gun fell out and Martin was trying to grab the gun.  The point is the news does not have the full story the police do.  But people want to automatically cry racism and demand justice without letting the police and prosecutors do the investigation first.  If Zimmerman broke the law he will be charged once the investigation is finished if he didnt then he wont.  I dont care either way I just dont want to see political pressure cause someone that shouldnt be charged end up charged to appease the people that dont even have the facts.  We are not tried and convicted in the news in this country your innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not after a 2 min news clip on the 6 oclock news.


----------



## Grenadier

Right now, it's looking like the media could owe a big "mea culpa" after all is said and done, since they were in a feeding frenzy the likes of which reminded me of the Tawana Brawley case and the Duke Lacrosse Team case.  

Not coincidentally, in both cases, you had Al Sharpton stoking the flames of racial hatred. 

The police stated that Zimmerman's statement is consistent with the evidence in hand:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...ns-account-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/1222087



> SANFORD &#8212; With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked neighborhood watch  volunteer George Zimmerman, then climbed on top of him and slammed his  head into the sidewalk several times before Zimmerman shot the unarmed  17-year-old to death, the Orlando Sentinel reported on Monday.
> 
> The Sentinel, citing unidentified authorities, said that is the account  Zimmerman gave to police, and much of it has been corroborated by  witnesses.
> 
> The department's statement also said the Sentinel's report on  Zimmerman's account was "consistent" with evidence turned over to  prosecutors, the AP said.




On another, somewhat related note, the hate mongering Black Panther leader who put out the bounty on George Zimmerman's head, just got arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon:

http://www.ajc.com/news/new-black-panther-leader-1398575.html



> A high-ranking member of the New Black Panther Party remained in the DeKalb County Jail  on a weapons charge Tuesday.
> 
> Hashim Nzinga, 49, was was arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the DeKalb County Sheriff&#8217;s Office said Monday.


----------



## aedrasteia

ballen0351 said:


> The point is the news does not have the full story the police do.  But people want to automatically cry racism and demand justice without letting the police and prosecutors do the investigation first.



Ballen

respectfully - there would be *no investigation* by police and prosecutors without the outcry and demand for justice 
that you condemn. I'm wondering how you square that situation. 

Neither police/prosecutors went further at the time of the death. There was no investigation 
beyond the initial statements by Mr. Zimmerman. My assumption from your comment is that the investigation
currently underway is useful and proper and should be allowed to procede.

But this investigation - which we all hope is effective - would not be taking place at all without the 
actions of those who were shocked that it had not been initiated by police/prosecutors
at the time of the death of Mr. Martin. For me that is the central issue which is intolerable, that
there was no thorough, complete investigation initially.

_"If Zimmerman broke the law he will be charged once the investigation is finished if he didnt then he wont."  _your comment.

At the time there was no investigation. Without the demands you condemn, there would be none at all.
Your thoughts?


----------



## crushing

Grenadier said:


> Right now, it's looking like the media could owe a big "mea culpa" after all is said and done, since they were in a feeding frenzy the likes of which reminded me of the Tawana Brawley case and the Duke Lacrosse Team case.
> 
> Not coincidentally, in both cases, you had Al Sharpton stoking the flames of racial hatred.
> 
> The police stated that Zimmerman's statement is consistent with the evidence in hand:
> 
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...ns-account-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/1222087



Who would have guessed that billi is a Tampa Bay Times staff writer?


----------



## ballen0351

Adrasteia

Where did you get that info from. How do you know there was no investigation?  The news tell you that?  The same news thats been  wrong every step of the way on this case.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Adrasteia
> 
> Where did you get that info from. How do you know there was no investigation? The news tell you that? The same news thats been wrong every step of the way on this case.



Yeah, there was an "investigation," all right. 



> The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
> But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence



and:



> Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.


----------



## aedrasteia

Ballen

Thank you for your specificity. I'll try to do the same. The initial investigation by police resulted in no charges 
against Mr. Zimmerman but apparently did not include a variety of additional investigative actions that are now 
underway and which i believe you approve of. Is this correct?  Are you satisfied that the original LE and prosecutorial
investigative actions were sufficient?  Is the current, further investigation necessary or unnecessary?

I have not commented until now because i felt much more information was needed 
and the inflamed rhetoric generated little light and lots of unhelpful heat. But I also wondered 
why several investigatory actions seemed to have not been taken at the time. 

I have no conclusions at this time - except that I'm glad this is getting a much closer and more thorough
examination. I wish that had happened earlier.   Are you satisfied that the initial actions by police etc were
sufficient?  Is the current investigation necessary?  Why or why not?

thanks


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Thats why you cant jump to judgment without all the facts which is what everyone that claimed Coverup has done. Reporters dont have all the facts and what they are missing they fill in with speculation. My own personal shooting I was a victim of this but since the person I shot was white it never made national news only local stuff but the stories the news put out were 100% wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Again your jumping to conclusions without the full story. If all the kid did was punch him and stop then your right but at least one story so far has him banging Zimmermans head into the ground and I read one story where his gun fell out and Martin was trying to grab the gun. The point is the news does not have the full story the police do. But people want to automatically cry racism and demand justice without letting the police and prosecutors do the investigation first. If Zimmerman broke the law he will be charged once the investigation is finished if he didnt then he wont. I dont care either way I just dont want to see political pressure cause someone that shouldnt be charged end up charged to appease the people that dont even have the facts. We are not tried and convicted in the news in this country your innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not after a 2 min news clip on the 6 oclock news.



Easier said than done.  If that was the way it should be, then nothing would be reported, ever, until ALL of the 'facts' were brought to light.  Are you telling me that LEOs themselves, never jump to conclusions before all the facts are obtained?  Obtaining all the facts could take years.  

If you notice, I"ve said in many posts that my intent was not to turn this into some racial debate, however, the fact remains that race ultimately will play a part in this, like it or not.  I'm simply going on what has been presented at this time.  

In the end, and I know this'll probably sound like I'm jumping to conclusion, but IMO, I dont think so....but as I've said so many times in the past, half of these situations that people find themselves in, could probably have been avoided, if people used simple common sense.  IMO, its not up to a citizen to physically get involved in a possible criminal investigation.  You want to get involved?  Pick up your phone, call the cops, report what you see, and let THEM handle it.  Instead of trying to get the part of Chrles Bronson for the next installment of Death Wish, use your head.  Sadly, thats a foreign concept for some.  Oh well.....


----------



## ballen0351

aedrasteia said:


> Ballen
> 
> Thank you for your specificity. I'll try to do the same. The initial investigation by police resulted in no charges
> against Mr. Zimmerman but apparently did not include a variety of additional investigative actions that are now
> underway and which i believe you approve of. Is this correct?


See I dont know where your getting your information.  Investigations like this are complex and take time esp when you have conflicting witness statements and even more so for smaller police departments that are not normally asked to handle them.  The initial investigation showed there was at least enough information to hold off charging Zimmerman until further info could be determinded.  That wasnt good enough for Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson that saw Dollar signs and began to turn this into a media circus.





> Are you satisfied that the original LE and prosecutorial
> investigative actions were sufficient?  Is the current, further investigation necessary or unnecessary?


I have no idea since im not part of the investigation.  I can only go off the same news reports everyone else sees and my own personal knowledge of Homicide Investiagtions of which Ive taken part in a few.  My only argument in all this is to disagree with people that sit here and bash the police call them Racist and say they dont know what they are doing.  Nobody here has any factual information on what the police have and have not done so I dont know how anyone can make these claims of racism, and coverup.
My biggest complaint about the job the police have done is the way they have delt with the media.  If I were in charge I would not have released ANYTHING no 911 tapes, no witness accounts, nothing.  Its not the Police departments job to put its investigations out in the public.  Some things are public information but that only applys if someone is arrested and since as of now there have not been any charges I wouldnt have released anything.  Now they are spending just as much time trying to defend themselves as they are working the case.




> . But I also wondered
> why several investigatory actions seemed to have not been taken at the time.


What has happened now that didnt before?



> Are you satisfied that the initial actions by police etc were
> sufficient?  Is the current investigation necessary?  Why or why not?


Like I said I dont have any FACTS about what the police did or didnt do so I cant comment.  What I do know is Ive been a Police Officer for over 10 years.  Ive been involved in all aspects of a Homicide investigations including having been the shooter.  I dont understand why any police officer would not try to do their job.  Everyone would know going to a call like this the news is going to get involved its common sense an unarmed kid was shot the news is coming.  As an officer we also know the media will ALWAYS make out the police in the neg. light.  So I cant understand why they would purposly try and not do their job or cover it up.  There were multiple officers involved so for Racism to play a part they would ALL need to be racists and I just dont buy that.  One officer plants some dope on a minorty to lock him up sure Racism would be the key factor but and entire department nope.  Maybe not everyone is as honest and hard working as the people I work with but I just dont see any reason why the Sanford PD wouldnt do their jobs.  hey are an accredited Law enforcement agency.  Which means they are regularly audited by Officers form other departments to make sure they are in compliance with the standards.  We are also accredited and its a pain in the butt.  It takes weeks to complete an audit 8 hours a day 5 days a week.  The inspect EVERYTHING.  So I just cant see Sanford PD being this screwed up.  Not when Ive had my own dealings with the media myself.  
It all comes down to most people dont like the police so no matter what the real FACTS are the police will be wrong.  And when people like Al Sharpton are involved they dont want the facts.  Hell they dont even want Zimmerman charged because once hes charged they have no more platform to speak.  
thanks[/QUOTE]


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Easier said than done.  If that was the way it should be, then nothing would be reported, ever, until ALL of the 'facts' were brought to light.


True half truths and flase stories make better headlines but I would hope with all the times news storys are later shown to be wrong people would take them with a grain of salt.


> Are you telling me that LEOs themselves, never jump to conclusions before all the facts are obtained?


Nope were human but I can say I try not to.  I try to go into every case with an open mind.  I also know the few times I KNEW I had a case figured out before I had all the facts I was totally WRONG.


.  



> In the end, and I know this'll probably sound like I'm jumping to conclusion, but IMO, I dont think so....but as I've said so many times in the past, half of these situations that people find themselves in, could probably have been avoided, if people used simple common sense.


I agree 100% that can be said about almost all crime


> IMO, its not up to a citizen to physically get involved in a possible criminal investigation.  You want to get involved?  Pick up your phone, call the cops, report what you see, and let THEM handle it.



True which now the stories are coming out that this may be exactly what Zimmerman did 



> Instead of trying to get the part of Chrles Bronson for the next installment of Death Wish, use your head.  Sadly, thats a foreign concept for some.  Oh well.....


I agree as well but the facts may not support your opinon.  If Zimmerman was infact walking away back to his truck and was attacked first then he did have a right to defend himself.  Point is we dont know yet what happened.


----------



## Big Don

Big Don said:


> Remember this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was attacked by damn near everyone as racist.
> Isn't this, then, racist as well?
> 
> 
> 
> And heres the original pic





elder999 said:


> You do know that that's not Trayvon Martin, dontcha?


That IS Trayvon Martin, why no comment Elder? Does it not fit the narrative?


----------



## Big Don

It is often said that *you are known by the company you keep*. I would add to that the corollary, *you will also be known by those who support your cause*.
Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton? Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson? The New Black Panther Party? Not good people to have on your side, imo.
The New Black Panther Party, is to black people what La Raza is to Hispanics and the KKK is to white people, a place for the worst dregs to gather together.


----------



## Big Don

Registered Dem Killed Trayvon

 					 										Meet registered Democrat and self-identified Hispanic American, George Zimmerman
 								 										 						BY:  Andrew Stiles - March 27, 2012 12:28 pm
Washington Free Beacon EXCERPT:


 										The individual at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting is a registered Democrat.
 George Michael Zimmerman, born Oct. 5, 1983, registered as a Democrat  in Seminole County, Fla., in August 2002, according to state voter  registration documents.
 It is unclear whether he voted for President Barack Obama in 2008.
 Some in the media have sought to blame Republican politicians and conservative activists for Martin&#8217;s death.
 &#8220;[Republican politicians] reinforce and validate old stereotypes that  associate the poor and welfare as criminal behavior with  African-Americans and people of color, calling us lazy, undeserving  recipients of public assistance. In the case of Trayvon, those festering  stereotypes had lethal consequences,&#8221; said MSNBC political analyst and  Democratic fundraiser Karen Finney.
 According to the document, Zimmerman&#8217;s race is officially listed as  Hispanic. The son of a white father and Peruvian mother, he has been  described as a &#8220;white Hispanic&#8221; in most media reports.
end excerpt
Hmmm, registered democrat? Maybe he really is a racist, the democratic party is the party of Jim Crow, Robert Byrd and the KKK...


----------



## Big Don

Yes, Trayvon's mom may be trying to trademark his name, but, too many on the left are trying to deify him.


----------



## shesulsa

Big Don said:


> It is often said that *you are known by the company you keep*. I would add to that the corollary, *you will also be known by those who support your cause*.
> Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton? Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson? The New Black Panther Party? Not good people to have on your side, imo.
> The New Black Panther Party, is to black people what La Raza is to Hispanics and the KKK is to white people, a place for the worst dregs to gather together.



You may want to read The World According to Garp - the Ellen James character and her "legacy" of followers, the Ellen Jamesians reminds me of many situations like this - and it never ceases to amaze me the black-or-white litmus you like to apply to things.



Big Don said:


> Yes, Trayvon's mom may be trying to trademark his name, but, too many on the left are trying to deify him.



Deify him? I think it's an opportunity to examine something that's wrong. Not to say there are plenty people who just follow along for the sake of having something to do with their time, similar to some Occupy people who don't even know what the movement is about, but they're happy to call out and demonstrate, get high and destroy property.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> True half truths and flase stories make better headlines but I would hope with all the times news storys are later shown to be wrong people would take them with a grain of salt.
> 
> Nope were human but I can say I try not to.  I try to go into every case with an open mind.  I also know the few times I KNEW I had a case figured out before I had all the facts I was totally WRONG.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> I agree 100% that can be said about almost all crime
> 
> 
> True which now the stories are coming out that this may be exactly what Zimmerman did
> 
> 
> I agree as well but the facts may not support your opinon.  If Zimmerman was infact walking away back to his truck and was attacked first then he did have a right to defend himself.  Point is we dont know yet what happened.



You know, as one that has said that whats said in the media, should be taken with a grain of salt, some of what I've said, has probably sounded like the complete opposite.  You're right....each day, something new seems to be coming out, so hopefully, one of these days, we'll get all the facts.

As for your last paragraph...I agree.  By all means, if Martin was in fact attacking Zimmerman, Zimmerman should have every right to defend himself.  One thing that I've asked many times, is, was he in the right to use that much force?  I mean, sure, it could be said that he was in fear for his life.  But, isn't this a fine line?  I mean, your version of fearing for you life, could be different from mine.  Ex:  Someone is physically attacking you, knocks you down, starts really beating the hell out of you.  Someone is standing 10ft. away from you, swearing, yelling, claiming that you cut them off while driving.  They're not moving towards you, just acting like a crazy nut.  While one case is obviously more drastic than the other, both people can claim they were in fear of their life.  Should the latter be able to kill someone?


----------



## ballen0351

The latest version of the story ive seen so far was martin was beating zimmermams head against the sidewalk.  If thats true i think deadly force is ok.  If im attacked knocked down and having my head bashed on the side walk im going to shoot too.  Another version ive seen was Martin was trying to take the gun away from zimmerman which to me again would make deadly force justified.  But again i say that in the same light as above these are just reports from the news so who knows of they are real or not


----------



## Empty Hands

Big Don said:


> That IS Trayvon Martin, why no comment Elder? Does it not fit the narrative?



You need to go back to photoshop school, son.  A cropped, lower resolution image is the "original"?  That isn't even logical.  As a matter of fact, the second picture is an image reported in the Miami Herald, and is clearly labeled as a photograph of a sign at a rally.  You know, a large, cropped, lower resolution copy that was then photographed, further decreasing the fidelity.  Which is obvious from the image.  Of course, that didn't stop Dan Riehl from running with it, and all the eager little ducklings like yourself gobbled it up.  You're being rooked, willingly or not.


----------



## crushing

Empty Hands said:


> You're being rooked, willingly or not.



There seems to be a lot of that going around after this tragic incident.


----------



## d1jinx




----------



## d1jinx

swore i wouldnt get involved or say anything, but I am so damn tired of this being painted as a race and civil rights war. 

today I heard on the Philly station about the PROTEST of a "WHITE MAN WHO SHOT A LITTLE BLACK KID".

This pisses me off and I believe the Media is completely responsible for blowing this out of proportion and turning it into a RACE WAR.

Funny thing is, kids, real kids, not 17 year olds, are killed everyday in Philly and NOT 1 PROTEST or **** done by anyone. But the second people think its RACE related its an atrocity.

As tragic as it is, it doesnt compare to a 9 year old playing in her yard and getting hit 4 times from *** holes shooting at each other. Wheres the media for that?

I am so sick of this ****. 

and for the record, I dont know who's at fault ZIMMERMAN or MARTIN. And I really dont care. Im not concerned for strangers 400 miles away when everyday kids get shot in MY AREA and no one says or does **** around here.

but everyone made sure to line up in center city to protest for someone miles away....

sad.


----------



## Empty Hands

Maybe it's just me, but the two images of Trayvon look about the same age.  If the one below is recent, that doesn't much change the point - this was a skinny little dude.


----------



## shesulsa

I think we could turn this discussion into something much more productive and important to self-defense theory here.

This is a really compelling case - for the sake of discussion, can we agree to assume the following?

1. Adult self-appointed neighborhood patrol, out on a personal errand, sees an unfamiliar young person wearing a hoodie (in the rain and in the dark) walking in the neighborhood, looking around a lot, lending to probably suspicion.

2. Said adult pursues pedestrian.

3. Hooded pedestrian notices adult following him, verbally confronts him telling and continues to try to leave; as adult continues to follow and close in, pedestrian turns and as adult approaches begins to attack.

4. An altercation happens - at various times each party is superior in position to the other.

5. The adult attempts at one point to return to his vehicle (purpose unknown).

6. The fight escalates to the point where the pedestrian is bashing the adult's head on the ground.

7. The adult shoots the pedestrian, killing him.

I think there are many on the board who live in neighborhoods where home and car break-ins are common and see unfamiliar pedestrians a lot. By the time many of criminals who burglarize are often long gone before police arrive, leaving some to focus more on prevention by confronting strangers in their neighborhoods.

When does this kind of altercation stop being self-defense and become a fight? Who is defending themselves here? 

Let's assume each of these people perceived themselves to be in a threatening situation; from the pedestrian's standpoint, some strange dude was pursuing him for some unknown reason, and when this person tried to attack him, he turned the tables on the man, trying to save his life.  From the man's standpoint, this person might have been fleeing from already committing a crime or seeking an opportunistic situation and rather than risk loss or injury to another neighbor, he takes it upon himself - bravely - to confront this man. When he gets close enough to talk or pose a postural superiority to the suspect, he is attacked, so he responds trying to save his life.

What if BOTH of these men felt threatened and BOTH were trying to defend their lives?  If this is the case, should fault lie with the survivor?


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> Maybe it's just me, but the two images of Trayvon look about the same age.  If the one below is recent, that doesn't much change the point - this was a skinny little dude.



See i do notice a difference.  The top picture he looks to be about 12 the bottom id say 16 not a huge difference.  The two zimmerman pics i do see a huge difference


----------



## shesulsa

d1jinx said:


> swore i wouldnt get involved or say anything, but I am so damn tired of this being painted as a race and civil rights war.
> 
> today I heard on the Philly station about the PROTEST of a "WHITE MAN WHO SHOT A LITTLE BLACK KID".
> 
> This pisses me off and I believe the Media is completely responsible for blowing this out of proportion and turning it into a RACE WAR.
> 
> Funny thing is, kids, real kids, not 17 year olds, are killed everyday in Philly and NOT 1 PROTEST or **** done by anyone. But the second people think its RACE related its an atrocity.
> 
> As tragic as it is, it doesnt compare to a 9 year old playing in her yard and getting hit 4 times from *** holes shooting at each other. Wheres the media for that?
> 
> I am so sick of this ****.
> 
> and for the record, I dont know who's at fault ZIMMERMAN or MARTIN. And I really dont care. Im not concerned for strangers 400 miles away when everyday kids get shot in MY AREA and no one says or does **** around here.
> 
> but everyone made sure to line up in center city to protest for someone miles away....
> 
> sad.



Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that the shooter said, "F**king c**ns" while on the phone with 911 dispatch and the dispatcher didn't say anything or warn him or ... anything at all regarding the racial epithet?  

Cuz I think that might be part of the "it's a race issue" problem. When racists get involved, it's pretty hard to NOT call it a race crime. *just sayin'*


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> See i do notice a difference.  The top picture he looks to be about 12 the bottom id say 16 not a huge difference.  The two zimmerman pics i do see a huge difference



Eh, I just don't really see it.  He looks small in both.  I do agree on Zimmerman, he of course looks very different in the new pic.  Ironically, given the back and forth on this thread, he looks less stereotypically "Hispanic" to me in the new picture.  More like the generic white guy he was first described as.


----------



## ballen0351

D1jinx brings up a great point.  Im not far from philly im in the metro baltimore washing dc area.  We have kids shot and killed all the time nobody cares.  We dont have marches or rallys but we did this week in baltimore for martin.  Whats the difference?  Why no concern for them.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that the shooter said, "F**king c**ns" while on the phone with 911 dispatch and the dispatcher didn't say anything or warn him or ... anything at all regarding the racial epithet?


  why would they its not a dispatchers job to correct people id bet never even herd it a dispatcher is trying to do 20 things at once and im sure they were not listening to every word zimmerman whispered to himself.
Besides if sanford is anything like here they have heard way way worse.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that the shooter said, "F**king c**ns" while on the phone with 911 dispatch and the dispatcher didn't say anything or warn him or ... anything at all regarding the racial epithet?


  why would they its not a dispatchers job to correct people id bet never even herd it a dispatcher is trying to do 20 things at once and im sure they were not listening to every word zimmerman whispered to himself.
Besides if sanford is anything like here they have heard way way worse.


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> why would they its not a dispatchers job to correct people id bet never even herd it a dispatcher is trying to do 20 things at once and im sure they were not listening to every word zimmerman whispered to himself.
> Besides if sanford is anything like here they have heard way way worse.



No, it's not a dispatcher's job to correct people and I do realize they are multi-tasking during the calls ... I wonder, however, if people think that the slur was ignored on purpose?  Again, just suggesting here.


----------



## d1jinx

ballen0351 said:


> D1jinx brings up a great point.  Im not far from philly im in the metro baltimore washing dc area.  We have kids shot and killed all the time nobody cares.  We dont have marches or rallys but we did this week in baltimore for martin.  Whats the difference?  Why no concern for them.



EXACTLY.  I am born and raised in Baltimore and know all too well about the lovely CHARM city.

we were there this past 4th of July when the "Black" man stabbed the "WHITE" man in the neck with a bottle and killed him at the harbor in front of McCormick and Shmidts.  They had an arguement, broke up, and the guy ran up behind him when his back was turned and stabbed him in the neck with a broken bottle.


WHERE WAS THAT RACE RALLEY???????  Why was that not called a RACE CRIME??????  There sure was alot of name calling from both sides that were VERY RACIAL....

Same day up the block a small child was shot in the leg while walking home from the fireworks with his dad, holding his hand.  

NO RALLEY.


----------



## d1jinx

hey heres an idea, lets tweet the WRONG ADDRESS and run a 70 year old couple out of there home.

or

lets where a hoody to the house of representatives.

or

lets hold a ralley and end up looting a walgreens.


all of this **** is an excuse for people to act like a bunch of *** holes and say its ok cause its an atrocity what happened.

when i grew up and today, the "gear" of an eastcoast thug is hoody, timbs, gold teeth and white T.  not a stereo type either.  real.  hell I where 3 out of 4.  cause thats how i grew up.  this whole "hoody" **** is nonsense too.


----------



## d1jinx

Empty Hands said:


> Eh, I just don't really see it.  He looks small in both.



Gold teeth dont make for the quite so inocent kid. there are his facebook pictures out there where he's "THUGGED OUT".  not that it should matter...




Empty Hands said:


> I do agree on Zimmerman, he of course looks very different in the new pic.  Ironically, given the back and forth on this thread, he looks less stereotypically "Hispanic" to me in the new picture.  More like the generic white guy he was first described as.



what block do you think he checked on his census and school applications?  or financial aid?  or job applications?  white?


----------



## d1jinx

this WHOLE situation perpetuates racism.  not the sole action between zommerman and martin.  the REACTION of the media and the "masses".


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that the shooter said, "F**king c**ns" while on the phone with 911 dispatch and the dispatcher didn't say anything or warn him or ... anything at all regarding the racial epithet?
> 
> Cuz I think that might be part of the "it's a race issue" problem. When racists get involved, it's pretty hard to NOT call it a race crime. *just sayin'*





ballen0351 said:


> why would they its not a dispatchers job to correct people id bet never even herd it a dispatcher is trying to do 20 things at once and im sure they were not listening to every word zimmerman whispered to himself.
> Besides if sanford is anything like here they have heard way way worse.





shesulsa said:


> No, it's not a dispatcher's job to correct people and I do realize they are multi-tasking during the calls ... I wonder, however, if people think that the slur was ignored on purpose? Again, just suggesting here.



That is correct...its not our job to correct the public, despite something stupid that comes out of their mouth..lol.  Could the racial comments have been missed by the dispatcher?  Yes, its very possible.  However, they would most likely be caught on the tapes...as we heard with a clip that Elder posted.  Could it have been ignored?  Sure, anythings possible.  However, once the tapes are pulled for the investigation, anything racial would come out.


----------



## Master Dan

So far in the 15 pages of coments I would put it at over 75% of conservative over defensive to offensive making it a race issue and not able to come to grips that in America it is not fun or safe to be black with good reason Gees how about the professor not that long ago or the guy that just got married and was shot for trying to show his wallet? I have said all along that the PD was wrong on how they handled the case including public relations and now after reviewing video of Zimmerman in hand cuffs in the station and how they botched evidense collection and he did not apear to have any of the damage to his face or other parts that would suport deadly force including no wet spots on his butt or back even the police statement thought he should be charged with unlawful manslaughter and all we get on this site is slander, offensive inuendo, trying to take any side or position that would make it out that the kid was a low life, drug addict, thug what ever and last white people can't get no justice???????

Like I said before it ok to be a bigot or racist it is normal most ethic groups have issues with all other groups even some with in thier own ethnic like a cast system but I wish people could just be honest I don't care about the facts I hate this or that group and I ain't gona change kiss my grits. I will complain about one issue why is it ok for every ethinic group to organize and identify themselves but get a group of white people that want to just gather for that reason and all of sudden they are in trouble?


----------



## d1jinx

Master Dan said:


> ...come to grips that in America it is not fun or safe to be black with good reason ...



really?  maybe in rural america, but its the other way around in the cities.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...-is-white-so-this-clearly-is-not-a-hate-crime

wheres the Ralley?  Where's the Protest?  Better yet, lets have the KKK go ralley in this 13 year olds defense and see who's wrong.  


HYPOCRISY


----------



## MJS

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-...oting-videobre82s02n-20120328,0,7309654.story

Here is another link:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...mmerman-shortly-after-trayvon-martin-shooting

And the latest now, is that there was no blood or bruising on Zimmerman, when he was brought to the PD.  


"SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - The neighborhood watch volunteer who shot dead an unarmed black teenager in Florida appeared uninjured when he was brought into the police station on the night of the shooting, according to a video released by ABC News on Wednesday.

George Zimmerman told police he shot Trayvon Martin inside a gated community on February 26 in self-defense after Martin attacked him and repeatedly bashed his head into a concrete walkway.

Police have declined to arrest Zimmerman, triggering nationwide protests from citizens, politicians and entertainers who argue that Zimmerman, who is half white and half Hispanic, found the 17-year-old Martin suspicious and followed him because he was black.

Police at the scene said the 28-year-old shooter was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head, and Zimmerman's lawyer said his client suffered a broken nose from Martin's punch.

But no blood or bruising is visible in the video taken by a police surveillance camera that shows uniformed officers leading a handcuffed Zimmerman into the police station, nor are there blood stains visible on his clothes."


----------



## MJS

And while not directly related to this topic, it is, IMO, very relevant.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/03/fl-man-cleared-in-stand-your-ground-stabbing.html

A Miami man who chased a thief and stabbed him to death cannot be prosecuted because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, a judge said in a written opinion released Wednesday.
Greyston Garcia, 25, "was well within his rights" when he chased a man accused of stealing his car radio and stabbed the man to death, the judge ruled. The Miami policeman who supervised the case was stunned.
"How can it be Stand Your Ground?" the officer said to _The Miami Herald_. "It's on [surveillance] video! You can see him stabbing the victim."
Greyston Garcia's Stand Your Ground stabbing is getting national attention in the wake of Trayvon Martin's shooting death. Martin's killer, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, is also claiming self-defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground law -- though Martin was unarmed, and Zimmerman was apparently chasing him at one point.
Florida's law allows the use of deadly force if a person reasonably feels it's necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a forcible felony. However, ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who signed the law, has said it shouldn't apply when a person chases a victim.
But in Greyston Garcia's case, a judge disagreed. Garcia chased the alleged car-radio thief -- Pedro Roteta, 26 -- for more than a block, the _Herald_ reports. Roteta, carrying a four-pound bag of car radios, swung the bag at Garcia's head; Garcia blocked the bag with one hand and stabbed Roteta in the chest.
Roteta's swinging of the bag could have caused serious bodily injury or death, and placed Garcia in fear for his life, the judge wrote.
Still, after the fatal stabbing, Garcia did not call 911. Instead, he hid the knife and sold two of Roteta's car radios, then initially denied the killing when interviewed by police. None of those facts played into the judge's decision.
It's not clear how Greyston Garcia's Stand Your Ground stabbing may affect how the law is applied in other Florida cases. A grand jury is set to convene April 10 to consider charges in George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> The latest version of the story ive seen so far was martin was beating zimmermams head against the sidewalk.  If thats true i think deadly force is ok.  If im attacked knocked down and having my head bashed on the side walk im going to shoot too.  Another version ive seen was Martin was trying to take the gun away from zimmerman which to me again would make deadly force justified.  But again i say that in the same light as above these are just reports from the news so who knows of they are real or not



Ok, makes sense.   So, in this case, I'd say a punch to the nose, would at the most, warrant the same, whereas being knocked to the ground, and having your head slammed, shooting the guy, picking up an object and using it as an improvised weapon, etc, would be.


----------



## elder999

MJS said:


> Ok, makes sense.  So, in this case, I'd say a punch to the nose, would at the most, warrant the same, whereas being knocked to the ground, and having your head slammed, shooting the guy, picking up an object and using it as an improvised weapon, etc, would be.








Police Surveillance Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman



> A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain who says he shot Martin after he was punched in the nose, knocked down and had his head slammed into the ground.



Of course, with paramedics on site, he could have gotten some medical attention and clean up before he was brought in, and those police officers seem pretty sympathetic, but it's still a little suspicious.


----------



## Empty Hands

elder999 said:


> Of course, with paramedics on site, he could have gotten some medical attention and clean up before he was brought in, and those police officers seem pretty sympathetic, but it's still a little suspicious.



Maybe so, but not seeking medical attention that night (the police said his injuries were not serious) is hardly consistent with a broken nose and a head being "slammed over and over" into the concrete.

His story has changed 3-4 times now.  It's, uh, _odd _that so many are willing to accept the latest version uncritically.


----------



## elder999

Empty Hands said:


> Maybe so, but not seeking medical attention that night (the police said his injuries were not serious) is hardly consistent with a broken nose and a head being "slammed over and over" into the concrete.
> 
> His story has changed 3-4 times now. It's, uh, _odd _that so many are willing to accept the latest version uncritically.



And then there's this:



> The funeral director who handled Martin's funeral said there were no cuts or bruises on the teen's hands that would suggest a violent struggle or fight.
> &#8220;I didn&#8217;t see any evidence he had been fighting anybody,&#8221; Richard Kurtz of Roy Mizell and Kurtz Funeral Home in Fort Lauderdale, told television talk show host Nancy Grace.


----------



## Empty Hands

elder999 said:


> And then there's this:



Also, if Zimmerman shot Martin as he claimed in the heat of a struggle from point blank range while Martin was on top of him...Zimmerman should be covered in blood.  Martin's blood.

None of this means that Zimmerman must be definitively guilty.  But for anyone to claim with a straight face that "the evidence" mostly supports Zimmerman's account (which one?) is laughable.  There are many holes in Zimmerman's story and many pieces of countervailing evidence.  Yet all we hear are desperate attempts to change the subject (Trayvon was a thug!  Race war!  Sharpton!) or uncritical acceptance of the shooter's story.  Laughable.


----------



## Master Dan

Here in Alaska you don't need a concealed carry permit in fact you can carry anything anywhere except a bar, school, day care or womens shelter ect. However people here do far more time for killing wildlife than a human. Manslaughter could be out 2-3 years kill a moose or bear ilegally and you could face 10 or more years.

Monday our legislature is looking at approving an even more liberal version of the stand your ground law. NRA pretty strong here will be interesting to see if shootings go up with new law.

 When Obama won election people here went nuts buying shells and guns. A box of shells for some guns are over $80 dollars here. One person working at the post office said yep we gotta buy all the guns and amo we can gett because Obama's gonna take all our guns away? I don't know about you but theres just something wrong with seeing a post office worker foaming at the mouth about needing more guns and amo?????????

As for our DoJang we are going to do a shooting safety course this summer and alot of recreation target practice my self going to buy the Smith and Wesson 500 revolver with 500 grain loads due to bears its the only gun you can really pull fast to have a chance with a bear at dead run out of bushes 50 feet away and have chance not being injured.


----------



## Master Dan

Empty Hands said:


> Also, if Zimmerman shot Martin as he claimed in the heat of a struggle from point blank range while Martin was on top of him...Zimmerman should be covered in blood.  Martin's blood.
> 
> None of this means that Zimmerman must be definitively guilty.  But for anyone to claim with a straight face that "the evidence" mostly supports Zimmerman's account (which one?) is laughable.  There are many holes in Zimmerman's story and many pieces of countervailing evidence.*  Yet all we hear are desperate attempts to change the subject (Trayvon was a thug!  Race war!  Sharpton!) or uncritical acceptance of the shooter's story.  Laughable*.



Thank you 

Gee what could be causing the behavior above ( inset from saturday night live Church Lady) Could it be Satin/racist/ Obama hate/


----------



## CanuckMA

elder999 said:


> Of course, with paramedics on site, he could have gotten some medical attention and clean up before he was brought in, and those police officers seem pretty sympathetic, but it's still a little suspicious.



It's not the lack of blood on his face that's suspicious to me. As you said, paramedics could have cleaned him up. But the lack of blood on his clothing is. A broken nose is going to bleed. And at least some of it is going to land on your shirt.


----------



## crushing

Empty Hands said:


> His story has changed 3-4 times now. It's, uh, _odd _that so many are willing to accept the latest version uncritically.



I think that many people would tend to expect that the most recent information from the authorities and media would tend to be more accurate as the details come together than the immediate media reports that were accepted eagerly and uncritically by so many.  Not sure what is so "uh, odd" about such an expectation.


----------



## Master Dan

d1jinx said:


> really?  maybe in rural america, but its the other way around in the cities.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...-is-white-so-this-clearly-is-not-a-hate-crime
> 
> wheres the Ralley?  Where's the Protest?  Better yet, lets have the KKK go ralley in this 13 year olds defense and see who's wrong.
> 
> 
> HYPOCRISY



Really whats your point and no the cities are even worse because the larger cities are the most likely to have racial profiling and abuse even from non white officers in place? so you want to have the KKK go ralley in to upset the dead kids family? are you white what city you from and your above post I commented on already in detail that its a racist oximoron that makes no case at all but to promote non white hate and two wrongs don't make a right. However I do recomend Oxi Clean to keep your white sheet clean but my personal tast is for the red sating grand Dragon esamble with the high heels to match


----------



## Empty Hands

crushing said:


> I think that many people would tend to expect that the most recent information from the authorities and media would tend to be more accurate as the details come together than the immediate media reports that were accepted eagerly and uncritically by so many.  Not sure what is so "uh, odd" about such an expectation.



Because the reports do not build on each other, adding detail to generate a coherent narrative.  Each of Zimmerman's stories is flatly contradictory to the others.  In other circumstances, that would be considered the mark of a liar.


----------



## Empty Hands

CanuckMA said:


> It's not the lack of blood on his face that's suspicious to me. As you said, paramedics could have cleaned him up. But the lack of blood on his clothing is. A broken nose is going to bleed. And at least some of it is going to land on your shirt.



Adding to that, none of the officers who handled Zimmerman were wearing PPE like gloves.  That is generally SOP for handling persons and materials contaminated with human bodily fluids.

Also, Zimmerman showed no difficulty in getting out of the car or moving.  Or for breathing with his mouth closed.  We all know what happens when your nose is broken and what that means for your breathing.  We also know that people who have taken a beating, a "great bodily harm", "afraid for my life" beating, generally show some impairment in their movement.

Again, none of this means that Zimmerman must be guilty.  But it exposes holes in his story, yet again.  Just like the 911 tapes shot holes in the first story.  I wonder what story we'll get next?


----------



## d1jinx

Master Dan said:


> are you white what city you from .... However I do recomend Oxi Clean to keep your white sheet clean but my personal tast is for the red sating grand Dragon esamble with the high heels to match



dont know do ya?

your so delusional you might want to leave your polar bears and join civilization and figure out what really goes on. when was the last time you lived in NY, NJ Philly or Baltimore? easy to come to conclusions from the great "WHITE" north.

the point was, all the Black Rights Activists ran and jumped on the Defensive Racism Bandwagon but you didnt see Any ACTIVISTS or GROUPS rush to the defense of this boy when it was CLEARLY A RASCIST HATE CRIME. And I guarantee if The KKK or any other white group did show up, the whole world would try and crucify them.

Tell you what, since you are so concerned with what I am and where I am from, when the "revolution" pops off, I'm shooting any damn one who comes close regardless of what color they are. Cause my *** dont have a "side" but my own.

idiot.


----------



## crushing

Empty Hands said:


> Because the reports do not build on each other, adding detail to generate a coherent narrative. Each of Zimmerman's stories is flatly contradictory to the others. In other circumstances, that would be considered the mark of a liar.



I was talking more specifically about the information being provided by the government and media outlets and not just the statements of a seemingly guilty person that has been through an incredibly traumatic experience with a DOA bounty hanging over his head.  It wouldn't be the first or last time someone lied out of fear of harm to self or family.


----------



## d1jinx

Master Dan said:


> When Obama won election people here went nuts buying shells and guns. A box of shells for some guns are over $80 dollars here. One person working at the post office said yep we gotta buy all the guns and amo we can gett because Obama's gonna take all our guns away? I don't know about you but theres just something wrong with seeing a post office worker foaming at the mouth about needing more guns and amo?????????
> 
> .



do you even know what that was about?  and what the hell are you talking about?  what does this have to do with the OP?

Obama is from Illinois.  do you even know the illinois gun laws that he helped put into effect and supports?  yet this has no bearing on this conversation. 


why the hell are you rambling about GUN laws and Obama and how liberal your state is? 

you sound senile and dilusional.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> Also, if Zimmerman shot Martin as he claimed in the heat of a struggle from point blank range while Martin was on top of him...Zimmerman should be covered in blood.  Martin's blood.


How many shootings have you been too?  They are not always bloody messes.  When i shot the guy i shot i put 5 rounds 3 in his heart and 2 in the aorta learned from autopsy.  He had a white tshirt on and other then 5 holes in the shirt there was no blood until i started cpr and pushed the blood out.  I didnt think i even hit him at first because i didnt see blood.  Ive been to several other shootings with little to no blood.  Then ive been to non fatal shootings and looked like i walked into a slaughter house


> None of this means that Zimmerman must be definitively guilty.  But for anyone to claim with a straight face that "the evidence" mostly supports Zimmerman's account (which one?) is laughable.  There are many holes in Zimmerman's story and many pieces of countervailing evidence.  Yet all we hear are desperate attempts to change the subject (Trayvon was a thug!  Race war!  Sharpton!) or uncritical acceptance of the shooter's story.  Laughable.


Zimmermans story has not changed the news accounts of his story have changed.  Have you seen his statement?  Have you listened to his interview with police?  Tell me what actual EVIDENCE you have.  News storys are not evidence.


----------



## shesulsa

What kind of a pat-down was THAT? 

And ... what kind of walk-in was that? 

Not accustomed to seeing people in cuffs treated so nicely.  Sorry - had to say it.



elder999 said:


> Police Surveillance Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, with paramedics on site, he could have gotten some medical attention and clean up before he was brought in, and those police officers seem pretty sympathetic, but it's still a little suspicious.


----------



## MJS

elder999 said:


> Police Surveillance Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, with paramedics on site, he could have gotten some medical attention and clean up before he was brought in, and those police officers seem pretty sympathetic, but it's still a little suspicious.



That is true.  However, looking at the video, it didn't even look like his head was injured.  You'd think that even if it was cleaned up, there'd still be some sign of injury.


----------



## MJS

Master Dan said:


> *Here in Alaska you don't need a concealed carry permit* in fact you can carry anything anywhere except a bar, school, day care or womens shelter ect. However people here do far more time for killing wildlife than a human. Manslaughter could be out 2-3 years kill a moose or bear ilegally and you could face 10 or more years.
> 
> Monday our legislature is looking at approving an even more liberal version of the stand your ground law. NRA pretty strong here will be interesting to see if shootings go up with new law.
> 
> When Obama won election people here went nuts buying shells and guns. A box of shells for some guns are over $80 dollars here. One person working at the post office said yep we gotta buy all the guns and amo we can gett because Obama's gonna take all our guns away? I don't know about you but theres just something wrong with seeing a post office worker foaming at the mouth about needing more guns and amo?????????
> 
> As for our DoJang we are going to do a shooting safety course this summer and alot of recreation target practice my self going to buy the Smith and Wesson 500 revolver with 500 grain loads due to bears its the only gun you can really pull fast to have a chance with a bear at dead run out of bushes 50 feet away and have chance not being injured.



Umm,,,,you do realize that 99% of this has nothing to do with the OP, right?  The only thing remotely said that applies, is the bold.  Everything else, especially the ranting about the President, is moot to the thread.


----------



## shesulsa

MJS said:


> That is true.  However, looking at the video, it didn't even look like his head was injured.  You'd think that even if it was cleaned up, there'd still be some sign of injury.



Yeah, unless he were allowed to change clothes, but still ... I would expect to see some kind of laceration somewhere on his head that, if it was bad enough to bleed, probably should show up even on that quality of video.


----------



## MJS

crushing said:


> I think that many people would tend to expect that the most recent information from the authorities and media would tend to be more accurate as the details come together than the immediate media reports that were accepted eagerly and uncritically by so many.  Not sure what is so "uh, odd" about such an expectation.



Probably because one min. one thing is being said, and in the next, suddenly the story changes.  IMHO, its that, that makes people go hmm, get pissed, go on rants, cry for Zimmermans head on a plate, etc.


----------



## d1jinx

gotta apologize to the group.  getting a little caught up in the 1 thing i was most disgusted with.

My whole reason for posting was the shear disgust of how the media has created a frenzy and this whole thing has been painted a racial/civil rights issue.

Somewhere along the line I found myself pointing out real/blatant/obvious race/hate crimes and asking why no deal was made of them.  I was pissed that the radio here was calling him a White man and a White on Black Crime.  

My opinion does not matter anymore.  I really dont care what happened.  My whole point was we have serious tragedies daily here and people dont care and it doesnt eget the media attention that this 1 incident has and the reason this one has gotten it is because many are painting it as a RACE Crime.  

No one can say that he deliberately shot him cause he was black.  but because he called him a Coon, he is a racist white devil and "America Continues To Have RACE Issues"?

I'm sorry, I am done with this.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> What kind of a pat-down was THAT?


It wasnt it was a search they checked all his pockets.  By the time he arrived at the PD her prob been searched at least 3 to 5 times already theres not much left to find.  



> And ... what kind of walk-in was that?
> 
> Not accustomed to seeing people in cuffs treated so nicely.  Sorry - had to say it.


What do you want them to do slam him against a few walls?  Despite popular belief not every cop just goes around beating people up.  If the suspect is being complaint why trat him badly?  You want to piss a detective off act like a jerk to a suspect he needs to interview.  Make him so mad at how hes being treated he wont talk to any police.  The more serious the crime the nicer the police treat you.  We get McDonalds, cigarettes, sodas ect for people accused of Murder just to relax them make them feel comfortable so they are willing to talk.  Treat them like a jerk and see how fast they tell you to buzz off they want a lawyer then you cant talk to him at all anymore.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> How many shootings have you been too?  They are not always bloody messes.  When i shot the guy i shot i put 5 rounds 3 in his heart and 2 in the aorta learned from autopsy.  He had a white tshirt on and other then 5 holes in the shirt there was no blood until i started cpr and pushed the blood out.  I didnt think i even hit him at first because i didnt see blood.  Ive been to several other shootings with little to no blood.



Not at point blank range, I'll bet.......

]


----------



## punisher73

When was the video taken?  How long after the incident?  Any pictures of Zimmerman a day or two after the incident (most bruising doesn't show up right away)?  If there was blood all over him, the police might have taken the clothes as evidence and had Zimmerman change clothes.  

There are TOO MANY things unknown and the media is just throwing bits and pieces out there with NO FACTS known yet to make a judgement.  Same thing with Martin and the funeral home director, he's now commenting on post mortem injuries showing or not showing, come on now that's just opinion.  Has the coroner or forensic pathologist made any comments?


----------



## MJS

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-t-stand-ground-defense-233500523.html



> In many of the articles and blogs on the "stand your ground" law, people are condemning or defending the Florida law that neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman invoked to explain his shooting of the unarmed black teenager.  It didn't take long for my students to start debating the issue in class, with the fight coming down along racial lines, over whether the law was right or not. Finally, one student thinking about a career in law asked if we could see the law, which I pulled up from the Florida legislature page.
> Even those most critical of the Treyvon Martin shooting couldn't find a reason to oppose the law. Yet even the most ardent supporters contended it didn't seem the law applied to Zimmerman. If anything, Zimmerman seemed to make up his own law as he disregarded orders not to follow the suspect. Nor has anyone established the presence of a weapon that Martin possessed. He just had Skittles and ice tea.
> Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who was the chief executive of the state who signed the law into effect, was critical of Zimmerman as he defended the "stand your ground" law. At the University of Texas at Arlington, *Bush said, "This law does not apply to this particular circumstance. Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."*
> Bush also faulted local officials for dragging their feet on the investigation. Zimmerman might not have known about the law, but law enforcement officials who investigated the matter should have known better that the law was inapplicable to the case. Florida Gov. Rick Scott has been condemned for being slow to take an interest in the matter.
> Now folks are pressuring Scott to quickly review, and possibly dismiss, the law. But the first priority should be to prosecute the case that evidently had nothing to do with the law. Justice for Martin should come more quickly. The review of the law, which is not responsible for the shooting, should be slower and more thorough.



Thought this was interesting.  I bolded something that I felt was interesting.  Sure, of course, this is common sense.  Reading this, it would imply (at least IMO) that initially, when Zimmerman was following the kid, that the law doesnt apply.  Yet, once Martin turned and advanced towards Zimmerman, that now it does.

IMO, I'd call BS on that.  Why?  Because that's akin to me egging someone on, calling someone a bunch of nasty names, with the intent to piss them off.  In this case, I'd be the aggressor.  Yet when the guy I'm swearing at, gets tired of hearing me and comes towards me, now I claim SD?  No, sorry, IMO, it doesnt work that way.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> Adding to that, none of the officers who handled Zimmerman were wearing PPE like gloves.  That is generally SOP for handling persons and materials contaminated with human bodily fluids.


So now your an expert on police SOP's?  I know officers that NEVER wear gloves.  Its nasty but true.  I also wouldnt have put on gloves just to walk a guy from my car to the station theres no point hes being complaint.  If I suspected he may try to fight or resist then yeah Id glove up but other then they the only other time i would glove up is during a strip search or when I fingerprinted him.  



> Also, Zimmerman showed no difficulty in getting out of the car or moving.  Or for breathing with his mouth closed.  We all know what happens when your nose is broken and what that means for your breathing.  We also know that people who have taken a beating, a "great bodily harm", "afraid for my life" beating, generally show some impairment in their movement.


really because Ive had a guy just get into anasty  car accident duing a car chase run from the car like a jack rabbit holding his eye in his head.  Ive had suspects jump out and run from the back of my police car cuffed in the back and with leg shackles on and they looked like olympic sprinters.  Your observations just dont go along with real life.  You dont know his back ground you dont know how long he sat at the scene before he was driven to the station he had plenty of time to calm down get his wits about him.



> Again, none of this means that Zimmerman must be guilty.  But it exposes holes in his story, yet again.  Just like the 911 tapes shot holes in the first story.  I wonder what story we'll get next?


Holes in his story?  When have we even heard HIS story?  We heard the story the News claims to be true.  I have not seen his interview with the police, I have not seen his written statements.  So I have not gotten HIS story yet at all and nether have you


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> It wasnt it was a search they checked all his pockets.  By the time he arrived at the PD her prob been searched at least 3 to 5 times already theres not much left to find.


Okay.




> What do you want them to do slam him against a few walls?  Despite popular belief not every cop just goes around beating people up.  If the suspect is being complaint why trat him badly?  You want to piss a detective off act like a jerk to a suspect he needs to interview.  Make him so mad at how hes being treated he wont talk to any police.



Why knee-jerk to the polar opposite of what I said? How does this make your argument any better than mine or anyone else's you disagree with? I'm looking at the video and an officer walks between bikes while Zimmerman walks on the outside with no one flanking him on the outside. I'm sure they are in a secure enclosure, however ... I dunno, it just looks like bad positioning to me, even if they're trying to be nice and he is giving them no problems. Can you ... calmly ... comment, please?



> The more serious the crime the nicer the police treat you.  We get McDonalds, cigarettes, sodas ect for people accused of Murder just to relax them make them feel comfortable so they are willing to talk.  Treat them like a jerk and see how fast they tell you to buzz off they want a lawyer then you cant talk to him at all anymore.



While, again, you immediately knee-jerk to the exact polar opposite of any kind of question, I definitely understand the importance of calmness and politeness when dealing with potentially dangerous individuals. Lived with a few, got that down.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Not at point blank range, I'll bet.......
> 
> ]



Actually I was stanging 4 feet away when I fired 5 40 cal rounds out of a Glock and saw no blood.  Not until he fell to the ground and I tried CPR did blood start to come out.  I believe Zimmerman had a 9mm which is a smaller round the hole tends to close on itself when it enters the body keeping the blood inside and the person bleeds out from the inside.  But what do I know Ive been to more shootings then I can remember but I suppose your the expert.


----------



## MJS

d1jinx said:


> gotta apologize to the group.  getting a little caught up in the 1 thing i was most disgusted with.



No problem.  Happens to everyone. 



> My whole reason for posting was the shear disgust of how the media has created a frenzy and this whole thing has been painted a racial/civil rights issue.
> 
> Somewhere along the line I found myself pointing out real/blatant/obvious race/hate crimes and asking why no deal was made of them.  I was pissed that the radio here was calling him a White man and a White on Black Crime.
> 
> My opinion does not matter anymore.  I really dont care what happened.  My whole point was we have serious tragedies daily here and people dont care and it doesnt eget the media attention that this 1 incident has and the reason this one has gotten it is because many are painting it as a RACE Crime.
> 
> No one can say that he deliberately shot him cause he was black.  but because he called him a Coon, he is a racist white devil and "America Continues To Have RACE Issues"?



Agreed!  Add in 3 cups of media, 1 cup of Rev. Jackson, 1 cup of Sharpton, mix well, and bake on 350 for 1 hr.  What do you get?  A cluster ****! You do make a valid point though.  In this case, you see calls for a lynching yet when the tables are turned......



> I'm sorry, I am done with this.



Nothing to be sorry for.  You're voicing your opinion.  By all means, please, stay and participate in the thread.  But if you really want to go, thank you for your contributions.


----------



## shesulsa

MJS said:


> Thought this was interesting.  I bolded something that I felt was interesting.  Sure, of course, this is common sense.  Reading this, it would imply (at least IMO) that initially, when Zimmerman was following the kid, that the law doesnt apply.  Yet, once Martin turned and advanced towards Zimmerman, that now it does.
> 
> IMO, I'd call BS on that.  Why?  Because that's akin to me egging someone on, calling someone a bunch of nasty names, with the intent to piss them off.  In this case, I'd be the aggressor.  Yet when the guy I'm swearing at, gets tired of hearing me and comes towards me, now I claim SD?  No, sorry, IMO, it doesnt work that way.



I have to agree - and we can't know if when he says he went back to his truck that he actually did (did this really happen or did he throw that in to make it seem like self-defense?), or maybe he was going back for something (baseball bat? crowbar? GUN?).  If this were me and someone said they were going to kill me and started off towards a vehicle which could potentially contain something to kill me with ... lord, I can't say what I'd do here. If I were close enough, I guess I'd try to subdue him (like, knock him the eff out) and THEN run like hell and scream for help.  If I were far enough away I might just run. Proximity would have to be my deciding factor there.

This really seems shady with all these unanswered questions and I doubt we'll ever get the whole truth.

It's telling, though, that the mortician noticed no physical signs of a fight on Martin.


----------



## shesulsa

punisher73 said:


> When was the video taken?  How long after the incident?  Any pictures of Zimmerman a day or two after the incident (most bruising doesn't show up right away)?  If there was blood all over him, the police might have taken the clothes as evidence and had Zimmerman change clothes.



You know what? You're right. He was taken in four hours later. I was focusing on what I was watching and had my speaker off - they said he came in four hours later - ample time to get cleaned up, get first aid, change clothes.



> There are TOO MANY things unknown and the media is just throwing bits and pieces out there with NO FACTS known yet to make a judgement.  Same thing with Martin and the funeral home director, he's now commenting on post mortem injuries showing or not showing, come on now that's just opinion.  Has the coroner or forensic pathologist made any comments?



You make a good point, however, the mortician who took care of my mom said he was required to do a thorough examination of her body and look for signs of abuse, injury or struggle (she was in hospice care). He said he was required to examine her for fight evidence and even sexual abuse to include in his report to the ME who typically doesn't show up at hospice deaths.

I would think there would be an ME report in this case - I wonder if it will be released to the public?


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> Why knee-jerk to the polar opposite of what I said? How does this make your argument any better than mine or anyone else's you disagree with? I'm looking at the video and an officer walks between bikes while Zimmerman walks on the outside with no one flanking him on the outside. I'm sure they are in a secure enclosure, however ... I dunno, it just looks like bad positioning to me, even if they're trying to be nice and he is giving them no problems. Can you ... calmly ... comment, please?


it wasnt knee-jerk I was commenting to your post about never seeing someone treated so well in cuffs.  I didnt know there was a correct way to walk someone thru a locked and secure sally port.    How would you like them to walk?  Would I have done it that way no.  I keep one arm on a cuffed person at all times but thats only because Ive had someone trip when cuffed fall and smash there face on the floor because they cant break there fall because they are handcuff behind there back.  I however have learned from my mistake and dont do that any more.  Im one of the few at my station that do this however.  Others normally pull into our sally port open the car door tell the suspect to walk over to the door to the cell block while they are walking the officer checks the seat for anything the suspect shoved under the seat at the same time a booking officer opens the cell block door and takes your prisioner inside  we normally never see them again unless I need to interview them.  We walk upstairs complete th paperwork send it down to the transport officer who then takes the suspect to the court house for the inital apperance.  
  Like i said Im not sure what you expect to see.  With a comment like you posted you must have expected them to rough him up or something.


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> it wasnt knee-jerk I was commenting to your post about never seeing someone treated so well in cuffs.  I didnt know there was a correct way to walk someone thru a locked and secure sally port.    How would you like them to walk?  Would I have done it that way no.  I keep one arm on a cuffed person at all times but thats only because Ive had someone trip when cuffed fall and smash there face on the floor because they cant break there fall because they are handcuff behind there back.  I however have learned from my mistake and dont do that any more.



Exactly. When we're talking about a group who must follow procedure all the time, to see some so lax ... well, it makes one wonder what else they're lax at.



> Like i said Im not sure what you expect to see.  With a comment like you posted you must have expected them to rough him up or something.



See? That right there.  You make assumptions like this and it kind of ... well, it betrays that you just knee-jerk react.  Why would I expect them to rough him up? I would expect them to lead him in by the arm and at least flank him on the outside.  It's almost as if they're taking in one of their own. 

My DH's cousin works custody here in town and we've discussed how much leeway she gives to whom and ... she, like you, is much more careful than most others. She said it also depends on what they are brought in for.  

Decaf, friend. It's much easier to answer questions logically and calmly, mkay? I'm not your enemy here.

**EDITED TO ADD**

And yes, I'm pretty sure the departments around here have a procedure for walking a suspect from a secure sally port into the building and into intake and from one point to the other until they are in the cell and the cell is secured.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> Exactly. When we're talking about a group who must follow procedure all the time, to see some so lax ... well, it makes one wonder what else they're lax at.


You assume there is a procedure they are not following.  We have no procedure where I work about how we walk with a person in custody.  So by not escorting them Im not breaking procedure.  Our only SOP says then must be cuffed in the back unless they have some medical reason to put them up front.  Put in a caged car on rear passenger side unless we transport 2 people.  They must be searched prior to being placed into the car and when they are removed then the booking officer preforms an addition search and if its a drug related charge a strip search when they enter the cell block.  We must flip up and inspect the back seat prior to putting anyone in the car and as soon as possible when they are removed. There is no SOP on how to walk them.  We have training on the best ways to do it but thats it.




> See? That right there.  You make assumptions like this and it kind of ... well, it betrays that you just knee-jerk react.  Why would I expect them to rough him up? I would expect them to lead him in by the arm and at least flank him on the outside.  It's almost as if they're taking in one of their own.


  theres a wall on his outside I dont ever get between a suspect and a wall its to easy for them to shove me into the wall and smack my head against it and knock me out.  Also if he acts up I can pin him against a wall which I couldnt do as easy if there were an officer standing there.  Your making to much out of nothing.  how they walked him into the station really has no bearing on the case.


> My DH's cousin works custody here in town and we've discussed how much leeway she gives to whom and ... she, like you, is much more careful than most others. She said it also depends on what they are brought in for.


The crime to me has nothing to do with how closely I watch them its how they are acting.  you can be killed just as quickly by a shoplifter then a murderer.  One of the worst fights Ive ever been in was over a parking ticket a meter maid wrote the guy started yelling at her she called for police assistance by the time it was over I was covered in blood had my uniform shirt ripped almost off and broke my had, his nose, orbital bone, we both got OC sprayed by the meter maid how was trying to help and he was tazed when back up arrived.  Over a 25 dollar parking ticket.  I hope she never lets her guard down just because its a petty crime.
Here is a story she should read about a shoplifter in Cal.
http://www.policeone.com/news/60658-calif-wal-mart-gun-battle-detailed



> Decaf, friend. It's much easier to answer questions logically and calmly, mkay? I'm not your enemy here.


Never said you were my enemy but your comment wasnt logical or calm. Your "Im just sayin" made it sould like an attack on the police  

**EDITED TO ADD**



> And yes, I'm pretty sure the departments around here have a procedure for walking a suspect from a secure sally port into the building and into intake and from one point to the other until they are in the cell and the cell is secured.


  Ive worked at 3 different departments and my wife has been at 2 and I dont know of any that spell out how to walk a prisioner.  Even after my department was sued when the guy I had fell they decided not to add an SOP because there are too many variables to be that specific.


----------



## punisher73

Spike Lee issued an apology to the couple who owned the house he claimed Zimmerman lived at.  The older couple had to leave their house due to threats and harrassment after Lee posted the wrong address.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...o-florida-couple-for-retweeting-their-address

No one will ever know what REALLY happened, just as in any other case.  You have both sides of the story and then evidence to support the claims.  Almost nothing is ever clear cut.  I won't make a judgement until everything is done and made public, I just think that there are too many unknowns and the media is just releasing bits and not caring their accuracy to stir things up.


----------



## Big Don

> Zimmerman, who is half white and half Hispanic


Mention that Obama is half white, and you're a racist...


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> Mention that Obama is half white, and you're a racist...



Are you a racist?


----------



## Big Don

Steve said:


> Are you a racist?



see


----------



## shesulsa

Big Don said:


> Mention that Obama is half white, and you're a racist...



Only if you called him a half-coon.


----------



## shesulsa

No takers? When does it stop being self-defense and start becoming homicide?



shesulsa said:


> I think we could turn this discussion into something much more productive and important to self-defense theory here.
> 
> This is a really compelling case - for the sake of discussion, can we agree to assume the following?
> 
> 1. Adult self-appointed neighborhood patrol, out on a personal errand, sees an unfamiliar young person wearing a hoodie (in the rain and in the dark) walking in the neighborhood, looking around a lot, lending to probably suspicion.
> 
> 2. Said adult pursues pedestrian.
> 
> 3. Hooded pedestrian notices adult following him, verbally confronts him telling and continues to try to leave; as adult continues to follow and close in, pedestrian turns and as adult approaches begins to attack.
> 
> 4. An altercation happens - at various times each party is superior in position to the other.
> 
> 5. The adult attempts at one point to return to his vehicle (purpose unknown).
> 
> 6. The fight escalates to the point where the pedestrian is bashing the adult's head on the ground.
> 
> 7. The adult shoots the pedestrian, killing him.
> 
> I think there are many on the board who live in neighborhoods where home and car break-ins are common and see unfamiliar pedestrians a lot. By the time many of criminals who burglarize are often long gone before police arrive, leaving some to focus more on prevention by confronting strangers in their neighborhoods.
> 
> When does this kind of altercation stop being self-defense and become a fight? Who is defending themselves here?
> 
> Let's assume each of these people perceived themselves to be in a threatening situation; from the pedestrian's standpoint, some strange dude was pursuing him for some unknown reason, and when this person tried to attack him, he turned the tables on the man, trying to save his life.  From the man's standpoint, this person might have been fleeing from already committing a crime or seeking an opportunistic situation and rather than risk loss or injury to another neighbor, he takes it upon himself - bravely - to confront this man. When he gets close enough to talk or pose a postural superiority to the suspect, he is attacked, so he responds trying to save his life.
> 
> What if BOTH of these men felt threatened and BOTH were trying to defend their lives?  If this is the case, should fault lie with the survivor?


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> No takers? When does it stop being self-defense and start becoming homicide?



When they can prove it was homicide.  Your innocent in this country and your not required to prove your innocent.  The stste is required to prove your guilty.  Thats not always as easy as it sounds.  I know a guy right now we KNOW has comited at least 4 different murders but we dont have the evidence to prove it and none of the witnesses will testify.  I can go to his house right now and have no doubt he killed the 4 for sure and we think its at least 6 but we cant prove it


----------



## Steve

I say we burn him.....


 No.  I say we hang him.....


No.  Let's hang him...  Then burn him....


Yeah!!,!,!!


----------



## elder999

Here's a redacted copy of the initial police report. 

This is "*interesting*":


----------



## billc

Hmmmm...just maybe, George Zimmerman isn't the racist that people jumped to the conclusion that he was...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/




> In late 2010 and early 2011 George Zimmerman, the Hispanic Sanford, Fla., man who shot and killed 17-year-old black teen Trayvon Martin,  publicly demanded discipline in a race-related beating case for at  least two of the police officers who cleared him after the Feb. 26  altercation, according to records obtained by The Daily Caller.
> 
> In a letter to  Seminole County NAACP president Turner Clayton, a member of the  Zimmerman family wrote that George was one of &#8220;very few&#8221; in Sanford who  publicly condemned the &#8220;beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware  on Dec. 4, 2010, by the son of a Sanford police officer,&#8221; who is white.
> TheDC has confirmed the identity of the Zimmerman family member who  wrote the letter but is withholding that person&#8217;s specific identity out  of concern for the family&#8217;s safety.
> ​



Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/z...o-investigated-martin-shooting/#ixzz1r54zhgX9
​


----------



## Bill Mattocks

NBC has admitted 'doctoring' the 911 tapes, which made it seem as if Zimmerman were racist instead of answering a direct question by the 911 dispatcher.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-...diting-george-zimmermans-911-call-apologizes/



> This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
> 
> Zimmerman: This guy looks like he&#8217;s up to no good. He looks black.
> 
> And here is how it actually went down:
> 
> Zimmerman: This guy looks like he&#8217;s up to no good. Or he&#8217;s on drugs or something. It&#8217;s raining and he&#8217;s just walking around, looking about.
> Dispatcher: OK, and this guy &#8212; is he black, white or Hispanic?
> Zimmerman: He looks black.



Bit of a difference there, eh?  Yeah.

Bet we don't read any apologies or retractions from those who insist Zimmerman is racist.  It will not fit their world-view, so they will ignore this and not respond.  Sad, really.  Pathetic.


----------



## billc

This article, from Americanthinker.com, is one of the best summaries of where we, the uninformed public are now.  It brings up some necessary questions...where was Zimmerman's truck in relation to where the fight took place, and other items not generally looked at in other accounts.  The point that there were possibly 8 break ins in the community before Zimmerman called 911 on Martin, one of which involved a young mother locked in her bedroom as the intruder tried to get in, are a few things covered...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/zimmerman_and_ketman.html



> At  the very beginning of his 911 call, Zimmerman tells the operator that  there have been a lot of break-ins recently.  In fact, there were eight burglaries  in the previous fifteen months.  Where the intruders were identified,  most were young black males, including two who invaded the home of a  young mother and tried to break into the bedroom she had locked herself  into with her infant son.  This must have been a terrifying experience,  but it was not of interest to the MSM.  Zimmerman met with the woman afterward.





> According to Zimmerman's later testimony, he had returned to his truck  and was waiting for the police when he was surprised by Martin.  The  teen asked him if he had a problem.  When Zimmerman said "no" and  reached for his cell phone, Martin punched him in the face.  Zimmerman  fell to the ground; Martin jumped on top of him and began slamming his  head against the sidewalk.
> 
> Zimmerman  was not arrested for the simple reason that the physical evidence  corroborated his testimony and "John's."  According to the police, he  had a bloody nose, a swollen lip, lacerations on the back of his head,  and scuff-marks or grass stains on the back of his jersey.  The police  had no reason to believe that these were self-inflicted.  If Zimmerman's  statement is accurate, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, the subject  of so much vitriol, may not have been relevant; it applies to  individuals who are standing, not lying on their back being beaten.  In  no state do you not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if  your head is being slammed into concrete.
> A key piece of evidence not disclosed so far is where Zimmerman's truck  was parked.  If it was close to where police found Martin's body, this  would support his version.  Even more interesting when it's released  will be the paramedics' report.  ABC has featured a police surveillance  video which, they initially claimed, shows no injuries to Zimmerman.   Embarrassed by a high-definition version on Breitbart.com, the network enhanced the video, and it now shows "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head."



Notice the reference to Breitbart.com, that is one of the reasons the left hates Andrew Breitbart so much, he and his happy warriors challenge their version of reality...by looking at what actually happens...

And on the 911 operator letting Zimmerman know that he didn't have to follow Martin...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/



> I have no idea where this assertion of fact could possibly have come  from, but it is absolutely universal. Even now, pundits on every channel  maintain that Zimmerman disobeyed a police order (though it wasn&#8217;t even  an order) and continued chasing Martin. Zimmerman&#8217;s story from the  beginning to police and to the media has been that he stopped following  when the dispatcher told him to. There have been no witness statements  to the contrary. For that matter, there are no witnesses claiming to  have seen what happened before the physical altercation took place. But  what does the 911 tape tell us?







> There&#8217;s another reason to believe that Zimmerman stopped following  Martin: After he gives the dispatcher his personal address, at 3:35, he  says, &#8220;Oh crap, I don&#8217;t want to give that all out. I don&#8217;t know where  this kid is,&#8221; meaning he is worried Martin might hear where he lives. If  Zimmerman doesn&#8217;t even know where Martin is, would it even be possible  for him to still be following Martin at this point? Would it even be  possible for him to have continued following Martin after hanging up the  phone &#8212; a full two minutes after he first got out of his car and a  minute and a half after he fully stops breathing heavily &#8212; unless Martin  came back and revealed himself?



You know, we really need to wait to judge this until all the facts actually come out, without the media and certain groups pushing for a specific outcome...don't you think?


----------



## shesulsa

Bill Mattocks said:


> NBC has admitted 'doctoring' the 911 tapes, which made it seem as if Zimmerman were racist instead of answering a direct question by the 911 dispatcher.
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-...diting-george-zimmermans-911-call-apologizes/
> 
> 
> 
> Bit of a difference there, eh?  Yeah.
> 
> Bet we don't read any apologies or retractions from those who insist Zimmerman is racist.  It will not fit their world-view, so they will ignore this and not respond.  Sad, really.  Pathetic.



Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"

Come on, people.

This guy is not an untrained idiot - he used to be a security officer. So was I and our training hammered into our heads that _*our job is to observe and report*_. Neighborhood watchpersons (in this area, at least) are TOLD TO _*NOT PURSUE*_ a suspicious individual, rather gain a description if possible, call 911, _*observe and report*_.

There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman pursued Martin, *KNEW* that pursuing this young man was wrong and *KNEW* what he was doing when he did it anyway.  So I ask you this: WHY????

We must ask ourselves and each other WHY did he pursue this young man when he ALREADY HAD DONE WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND WAS IN THE LIMITS OF WHAT HE SHOULD DO??  

WHY???

What we don't know is what the crime statistics in that very neighborhood were for ... oh, let's give him 6 months ... prior to the incident.  Now, I could understand if neighbors were being raped, robbed, beaten, harassed, intimidated and threatened on a regular basis or if the situation were severe, or if this young man fit the description of a suspect in a recent, local violent crime, or a family member was the victim of one.

"These guys always get away."

What guys? Pedestrian hoodlums who case the neighborhood for car & home burglaries? Young guys walking through the neighborhood after sundown? Or is it those "f**king coons?"

I cannot ignore that he 1. Knew what he was doing. 2. Knew he shouldn't be doing it and 3. Did it anyway.  And called the kid a "coon" in the process.

I just don't see an enormous leap for race crime here.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> I think we could turn this discussion into something much more productive and important to self-defense theory here.
> 
> This is a really compelling case - for the sake of discussion, can we agree to assume the following?
> 
> 1. Adult self-appointed neighborhood patrol, out on a personal errand, sees an unfamiliar young person wearing a hoodie (in the rain and in the dark) walking in the neighborhood, looking around a lot, lending to probably suspicion.
> 
> 2. Said adult pursues pedestrian.
> 
> 3. Hooded pedestrian notices adult following him, verbally confronts him telling and continues to try to leave; as adult continues to follow and close in, pedestrian turns and as adult approaches begins to attack.
> 
> 4. An altercation happens - at various times each party is superior in position to the other.
> 
> 5. The adult attempts at one point to return to his vehicle (purpose unknown).
> 
> 6. The fight escalates to the point where the pedestrian is bashing the adult's head on the ground.
> 
> 7. The adult shoots the pedestrian, killing him.
> 
> I think there are many on the board who live in neighborhoods where home and car break-ins are common and see unfamiliar pedestrians a lot. By the time many of criminals who burglarize are often long gone before police arrive, leaving some to focus more on prevention by confronting strangers in their neighborhoods.
> 
> When does this kind of altercation stop being self-defense and become a fight? Who is defending themselves here?
> 
> Let's assume each of these people perceived themselves to be in a threatening situation; from the pedestrian's standpoint, some strange dude was pursuing him for some unknown reason, and when this person tried to attack him, he turned the tables on the man, trying to save his life.  From the man's standpoint, this person might have been fleeing from already committing a crime or seeking an opportunistic situation and rather than risk loss or injury to another neighbor, he takes it upon himself - bravely - to confront this man. When he gets close enough to talk or pose a postural superiority to the suspect, he is attacked, so he responds trying to save his life.
> 
> What if BOTH of these men felt threatened and BOTH were trying to defend their lives?  If this is the case, should fault lie with the survivor?





shesulsa said:


> No takers? When does it stop being self-defense and start becoming homicide?



Sorry, missed this.  I'd say it stops being SD, when you continue after the threat is no longer.  ie: guy takes a swing at you, you block and hit back, guy goes down.  Threat is over.  Once he's down, you use his ribs for football practice and his head and a soccer ball.  Thats a no no.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"



That may've been brushed under the carpet.  Just sayin. 




> This guy is not an untrained idiot - he used to be a security officer. So was I and our training hammered into our heads that _*our job is to observe and report*_. Neighborhood watchpersons (in this area, at least) are TOLD TO _*NOT PURSUE*_ a suspicious individual, rather gain a description if possible, call 911, _*observe and report*_.



Exactly!!! Sadly, there're people who're in these positions who think they're junior cops, firefighters, etc, when in reality they're not.  They just have a hard time coming to grips with that fact.  



> There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman pursued Martin, *KNEW* that pursuing this young man was wrong and *KNEW* what he was doing when he did it anyway.  So I ask you this: WHY????



Because he's a wanna-be?  Because he wants to be a hero?



> We must ask ourselves and each other WHY did he pursue this young man when he ALREADY HAD DONE WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND WAS IN THE LIMITS OF WHAT HE SHOULD DO??
> 
> WHY???



See above.



> What we don't know is what the crime statistics in that very neighborhood were for ... oh, let's give him 6 months ... prior to the incident.  Now, I could understand if neighbors were being raped, robbed, beaten, harassed, intimidated and threatened on a regular basis or if the situation were severe, or if this young man fit the description of a suspect in a recent, local violent crime, or a family member was the victim of one.



Good point.  



> "These guys always get away."
> 
> What guys? Pedestrian hoodlums who case the neighborhood for car & home burglaries? Young guys walking through the neighborhood after sundown? Or is it those "f**king coons?"



I'll take all of the above for $1000.   Something that people seem to forget, and something that I deal with on a daily basis.  People have no concept of time, and their incident is the most important one!  A woman called to report something today.  20min exactly past the original time of call, she called back, asking where the cop was.  While her call was important, to her, to me and to the cops, the other call, that came in right after hers, was a higher priority.  So, moral of the story...some guy walking around, while suspicious, isn't a 'hot' call.  When you have accidents, domestics, fights, etc, those will always take priority.  



> I cannot ignore that he 1. Knew what he was doing. 2. Knew he shouldn't be doing it and 3. Did it anyway.  And called the kid a "coon" in the process.
> 
> I just don't see an enormous leap for race crime here.



Yup.


----------



## Wo Fat

shesulsa said:


> Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"
> 
> Come on, people.
> 
> This guy is not an untrained idiot - he used to be a security officer. So was I and our training hammered into our heads that _*our job is to observe and report*_. Neighborhood watchpersons (in this area, at least) are TOLD TO _*NOT PURSUE*_ a suspicious individual, rather gain a description if possible, call 911, _*observe and report*_.
> 
> There is no question in my mind that Zimmerman pursued Martin, *KNEW* that pursuing this young man was wrong and *KNEW* what he was doing when he did it anyway.  So I ask you this: WHY????
> 
> We must ask ourselves and each other WHY did he pursue this young man when he ALREADY HAD DONE WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND WAS IN THE LIMITS OF WHAT HE SHOULD DO??
> 
> WHY???
> 
> What we don't know is what the crime statistics in that very neighborhood were for ... oh, let's give him 6 months ... prior to the incident.  Now, I could understand if neighbors were being raped, robbed, beaten, harassed, intimidated and threatened on a regular basis or if the situation were severe, or if this young man fit the description of a suspect in a recent, local violent crime, or a family member was the victim of one.
> 
> "These guys always get away."
> 
> What guys? Pedestrian hoodlums who case the neighborhood for car & home burglaries? Young guys walking through the neighborhood after sundown? Or is it those "f**king coons?"
> 
> I cannot ignore that he 1. Knew what he was doing. 2. Knew he shouldn't be doing it and 3. Did it anyway.  And called the kid a "coon" in the process.
> 
> I just don't see an enormous leap for race crime here.



At the risk of semantics, Zimmerman said _f**cking coon*s *_-- plural.  Moreover, it was the second time within that very call that he referenced a group of people i.e., "_*these* a**holes, *they* always get away_".  

What most reasonable people have and will conclude is that Zimmerman's actions were wreckless.  That Zimmerman made comments that were racially hostile in nature, might likely be evidence that he inflamed the situation that his poor judgment created.

For the life of me, I cannot understand some people's timidity in acknowledging and confronting racial bigotry when and where it exists.  When our society came together to condemn terrorism after 9/11/01, it sent a message around the world that terror and terrorists have no safe haven here.  No, 9/11 isn't the equivalent of anything.  Not trying to suggest it.  Rather, I'm saying that people can stand up and condemn some kind of "ism" for the good of society.


----------



## billc

It seems to me from what I have seen of his history calling 911 that he had established a pattern of calling, observing and reporting.  In the earlier posts, steve listed some of the 911 calls he had made before and there was not a pattern of him actively trying to apprehend, hold or detain, anyone that he called on.  He may very well have simply been following to observe and report the location of martin when the police arrived at the scene, and that seems to be shown on the 911 call.  If he was going to confront martin, he could have done that when he first saw martin walking near his truck.  He didn't get out then, and point his pistol, he let him walk by and then continued observing and reporting what he saw.

Also, that was where he lived.  He had as much if not more of a right to be walking anywhere on the grounds of that gated community, and as long as he didn't pull the pistol, or try to touch martin, he hadn't done anything wrong.  If he pointed the pistol first, which there doesn't seem to be any evidence of with two eye witnesses to the fight, or he touched, grabbed or hit martin first, then he crossed the line first and he would be in trouble.  Otherwise, he could have walked behind martin all day long and he wouldn't have been breaking the law.  then martin could have called the police about some guy following him.

As far as the racial slur, can you link to the actual point where he used it.  I heard it was indistinct, and you may not be able to determine what he actually said.  Also, if he did use it, you would have to weigh that against all the actual activity he did that goes against the accusation that he was a racist.  There seems to be a lot of that stacking up.  Also, even if he did use the term, that still doesn't mean he planned on killing martin, or wanted to.

The hate crimes silliness is just silly.  If he killed martin intentionally, it wouldn't matter why he did it, only in regards to trying to find out who the killer was.  Thought crimes accusations just muddy the situation up.  Killing someone for their race, or because they have something you want still leaves the person dead.  Prosecute the action, not the thought, it gets you to the same place and keeps you from doing silly things.


----------



## crushing

shesulsa said:


> Did they add the part where Zimmerman mutters, "F**king Coons?????"




It seems most people think he said that, especially the people that have listened to the 'enhanced audio' from CNN or have only read or heard that he said that, but didn't actually listen to unaltered audio version.   Many people think he said "F**king punks" or "F**king cold".   I fall in to the group that heard the enhanced audio first and really can't "unhear" it.


----------



## Wo Fat

crushing said:


> It seems most people think he said that, especially the people that have listened to the 'enhanced audio' from CNN or have only read or heard that he said that, but didn't actually listen to unaltered audio version.   Many people think he said "F**king punks" or "F**king cold".   I fall in to the group that heard the enhanced audio first and really can't "unhear" it.



And then there are people who heard "f**king clothes" or "f**king dabloons" or "f**king baboons" (no, probably don't wanna admit hearing that one)... maybe "f**king spittoons" or "f**K! Honeymoons" or even "muffin spoons".


----------



## crushing

Wo Fat said:


> And then there are people who heard "f**king clothes" or "f**king dabloons" or "f**king baboons" (no, probably don't wanna admit hearing that one)... maybe "f**king spittoons" or "f**K! Honeymoons" or even "muffin spoons".



It may be a bit soon to make light of the tragedy.


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> It seems to me from what I have seen of his history calling 911 that he had established a pattern of calling, observing and reporting.  In the earlier posts, steve listed some of the 911 calls he had made before and there was not a pattern of him actively trying to apprehend, hold or detain, anyone that he called on.  He may very well have simply been following to observe and report the location of martin when the police arrived at the scene, and that seems to be shown on the 911 call.  If he was going to confront martin, he could have done that when he first saw martin walking near his truck.  He didn't get out then, and point his pistol, he let him walk by and then continued observing and reporting what he saw.



What made him feel the need to follow Martin, especially after he was told not to?  Because in past calls, the cops didn't get there quick enough, as if they're supposed to get there in 2 secs?  Why, as a citizen, would you want to put yourself in harms way, when you know nothing about the person(s) you're watching/following?



> Also, that was where he lived.  He had as much if not more of a right to be walking anywhere on the grounds of that gated community, and as long as he didn't pull the pistol, or try to touch martin, he hadn't done anything wrong.  If he pointed the pistol first, which there doesn't seem to be any evidence of with two eye witnesses to the fight, or he touched, grabbed or hit martin first, then he crossed the line first and he would be in trouble.  Otherwise, he could have walked behind martin all day long and he wouldn't have been breaking the law.  then martin could have called the police about some guy following him.



Agreed, and did Martin have a right to be there as well?  I may be wrong, but wasn't he visiting someone in the area?  Hell, I take calls all the time for suspicious black males on the corner.  I ask what they're doing.  Know what the caller says?  Well, they're not doing anything except standing around.  They look suspcious.  Umm...sure, ok.  



> As far as the racial slur, can you link to the actual point where he used it.  I heard it was indistinct, and you may not be able to determine what he actually said.  Also, if he did use it, you would have to weigh that against all the actual activity he did that goes against the accusation that he was a racist.  There seems to be a lot of that stacking up.  Also, even if he did use the term, that still doesn't mean he planned on killing martin, or wanted to.



I heard it in one of the clips linked here.  I'm not going to seek out where it is, as this thread is 19 pages.


----------



## shesulsa

crushing said:


> It seems most people think he said that, especially the people that have listened to the 'enhanced audio' from CNN or have only read or heard that he said that, but didn't actually listen to unaltered audio version.   Many people think he said "F**king punks" or "F**king cold".   I fall in to the group that heard the enhanced audio first and really can't "unhear" it.



It helps if you read what I've posted. I don't watch nor listen to CNN - I posted links to the recorded 911 calls, unenhanced. I listened to all of the ones I've posted and have read all the articles I linked to in their entirety.  Instead of telling me what other people have listened to and what they think they heard, it would be nice if YOU could listen to the unenhanced recordings I posted and tell me what YOU heard. Thanks.


----------



## shesulsa

Wo Fat said:


> And then there are people who heard "f**king clothes" or "f**king dabloons" or "f**king baboons" (no, probably don't wanna admit hearing that one)... maybe "f**king spittoons" or "f**K! Honeymoons" or even "muffin spoons".



The emperor's new clothes are beautiful, are they not?



crushing said:


> It may be a bit soon to make light of the tragedy.



I read his post to be a pun at the refusal to acknowledge the racial implications at all costs based solely on partisan politics and the polarity therein.


----------



## granfire

shesulsa said:


> It helps if you read what I've posted. I don't watch nor listen to CNN - I posted links to the recorded 911 calls, unenhanced. I listened to all of the ones I've posted and have read all the articles I linked to in their entirety.  Instead of telling me what other people have listened to and what they think they heard, it would be nice if YOU could listen to the unenhanced recordings I posted and tell me what YOU heard. Thanks.



well, he said he heard the enhanced form, thus can't make it unheard, so his opinion is tainted. 

But seriously, considering the game shows and such that make fun 9and bank) of butchered song lyrics, I don't doubt for a minute that a whole bunch of BS could be interpreted into the tapes.

I mean, i have moments were I look at a person speaking generally good English to me and I only see the lips move and don't understand a lick of anything....


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> I read his post to be a pun at the refusal to acknowledge the racial implications at all costs based solely on partisan politics and the polarity therein.


Much like the refusal to acknowledge Race has nothing to do with deciding if this was self defense or not.  The color of the skin makes no difference on whether Zimmerman did or did not have the right to defend himself or if he commited a crime.  But it sure sells alot of Paper and makes for a good news story. So good infact the "unbias" news media that some of you keep getting your "FACTS" from have been show to be wrong over and over and now admit to basiclly lying or "Creative editing" to make the story even better.  If I wrote my poice reports and did "creative Editing" like that Ib be fired and prob charged criminally and convicted.  But who cares it makes for great ratings right and keeps Al Sharptons pockets full.


----------



## billc

Hmmm...here it is from a link from breitbart.com the story of CNN with a state of the art system and the reporter says it sounds like he is saying....get ready for it...."Cold."  The reporter also goes on to say that it was unseasonably cold out that night.

The attached video plays the remark several times and the reporter says it sounds like he says "******* Cold."  The  video is in the following link for anyone who wants to hear the updated, potentially non-racist word "Cold."


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/05/CNN-Coon-Cold-Zimmerman



> [h=1]Zimmerman Said 'Cold' Not 'Co*n': Most Trusted Name In News Back-peddles[/h]





> *Shorter CNN to George Zimmernan:
> *
> 
> Gee, George, sorry we pretty much declared you a racist in front of all of America before having all the facts, but Obama's all-in on this one and we're all-in for Obama and since you're a registered Democrat, we think you'll understand.
> XXXOOO



Hmmmm..."Cold,"...does that make him a racist too...This is another reason some hate the Breitbart sites.  The "Bigs" tend to deflate the agendas of a lot of people.


----------



## crushing

shesulsa said:


> The emperor's new clothes are beautiful, are they not?
> 
> I read his post to be a pun at the refusal to acknowledge the racial implications at all costs based solely on partisan politics and the polarity therein.



Ah yes, the two main sides of the partisan polarity have definitely taken shape in this discussion.  You have the side that thinks that people are basically good with good intentions against the side that assumes the worse in people.  I don't think anyone can deny the racial implications.  If it weren't for race this discussion wouldn't have gone on for 19 pages, if at all here on MT.

Recently I've been thinking about this tendency towards a sort of political tribalism, that also occurs in areas that I wouldn't consider all that political, would make a very interesting sociology study.  Hopefully a non-partisan sociologist is working on that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/z...ill-be-blood-on-your-hands-if-george-is-hurt/



> The letter also described how Zimmerman was one of &#8220;very few&#8221; in Sanford, Fla., who spoke out publicly to condemn the &#8220;beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Do you know the individual that stepped up when no one else in the black community would?&#8221; the family member wrote. &#8220;Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church&#8208;goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN. Ironic isn&#8217;t it?&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;The main point for this letter is to explain to you that the black community has labeled George a racist without any investigation at all,&#8221; the letter continued. &#8220;Regardless of the fact that George personally spoke to many of your constituents, not one has stepped forward and said, &#8216;Hey I know that face. That is the Hispanic guy that was standing up for Sherman Ware. That was the only non&#8208;black face in the meetings for justice in this case.&#8217;&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;You know as well as I do that there are many NAACP followers that recognize George from the Ware case as well as many other good things that he&#8217;s done for the black community.&#8221;
> 
> Clayton is one NAACP regional leader who has broken ranks with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and MSNBC host the Rev. Al Sharpton, refusing to join their calls for an escalation in protest tactics.
> 
> &#8220;We are not calling for any sanctions, against any business or anyone else,&#8221; Clayton said. &#8220;And, of course, what Rev. Sharpton does, that&#8217;s strictly the [National] Action Network. We can&#8217;t condone that part of the conversation, if that&#8217;s what he said.&#8221;



This was the video of the beating of the homeless man that allegedly got Zimmerman fired up:










WHY would Zimmerman stand up for the homeless (black) man against the police if he is racist?

I would think that there would be some way to find witnesses to his supposed 'handing out leaflets' and so on.  Seems to me that the story is either true, or an outright lie.  If it's a lie, it's a pretty carefully crafted one; and one likely to be caught out.

So did he or did he not defend the homeless man?  And if he did, I think we can lay this 'racist' theory to rest.


----------



## crushing

MJS said:


> I heard it in one of the clips linked here. I'm not going to seek out where it is, as this thread is 19 pages.





shesulsa said:


> It helps if you read what I've posted. I don't watch nor listen to CNN - I posted links to the recorded 911 calls, unenhanced. I listened to all of the ones I've posted and have read all the articles I linked to in their entirety. Instead of telling me what other people have listened to and what they think they heard, it would be nice if YOU could listen to the unenhanced recordings I posted and tell me what YOU heard. Thanks.



I went back through the thread and found shesulsa's post that had the link http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html.  This link has a section of 911 Calls In Not Particular Order.  "Call 1" is the one where he says "punks" or "*****."   I fully expected to here the derogatory term when listening, but instead I heard "cold."   Maybe it was because the apparent wind gusts that began to pick up before he said whatever he said that influences me to think he said cold?  But, are windy rainy 60 degree days considered cold?


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> Much like the refusal to acknowledge Race has nothing to do with deciding if this was self defense or not.  The color of the skin makes no difference on whether Zimmerman did or did not have the right to defend himself or if he commited a crime.



1. Zimmerman's motivation to pursue Martin is absolutely applicable to whether it was self-defense or not. If he is biased towards young black men wearing hoodies ... AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT THAT HE WOULD IGNORE HIS TRAINING TO OBSERVE AND REPORT ... to the point where he would actively pursue such a person causing no trouble but based on looks alone, his pursuit *counts* as threatening, harassing behavior and could be considered as cause for Martin to defend *himself.*

2. It is difficult to ignore how ready everyone is to jump to self-defense for the adult, but not the teen ... the pursuer but not the pursued.


----------



## granfire

crushing said:


> I went back through the thread and found shesulsa's post that had the link http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html.  This link has a section of 911 Calls In Not Particular Order.  "Call 1" is the one where he says "punks" or "*****."   I fully expected to here the derogatory term when listening, but instead I heard "cold."   Maybe it was because the apparent wind gusts that began to pick up before he said whatever he said that influences me to think he said cold?  But, are windy rainy 60 degree days considered cold?



In Florida?
You betcha!


----------



## Wo Fat

A simple question to help this discussion along:

What is racism and how does it manifest?


----------



## granfire

shesulsa said:


> 1. Zimmerman's motivation to pursue Martin is absolutely applicable to whether it was self-defense or not. If he is biased towards young black men wearing hoodies ... AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT THAT HE WOULD IGNORE HIS TRAINING TO OBSERVE AND REPORT ... to the point where he would actively pursue such a person causing no trouble but based on looks alone, his pursuit *counts* as threatening, harassing behavior and could be considered as cause for Martin to defend *himself.*
> 
> 2. It is difficult to ignore how ready everyone is to jump to self-defense for the adult, but not the teen ... the pursuer but not the pursued.





I don't exactly where you get that everybody jumps to the adults version of things.

I have not followed the story past what I can't avoid in the news, but it seems to me that we are having 2 things going on here:
A) explanation as to why the shooter is not in jail, nor being charged as of yet.
B) an attempt to understand the legal lay of the land in regards to self defense.

And naturally the efforts to understand the events.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> 1. Zimmerman's motivation to pursue Martin is absolutely applicable to whether it was self-defense or not. If he is biased towards young black men wearing hoodies ... AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT THAT HE WOULD IGNORE HIS TRAINING TO OBSERVE AND REPORT ... to the point where he would actively pursue such a person causing no trouble but based on looks alone, his pursuit *counts* as threatening, harassing behavior and could be considered as cause for Martin to defend *himself.*


So if Zimmerman was black and was following a stranger in his neighborhood then the shooting would automatically be ok?  Thats basically what your saying that because zimmerman was a racist automatically makes him guilty of murder regardless of the facts.  Thats just not how the system works he either defended himself or commited murder race dont matter.



> 2. It is difficult to ignore how ready everyone is to jump to self-defense for the adult, but not the teen ... the pursuer but not the pursued.


really because almost everyone including the President of the United States has been on Martins side to the degree that even the media is making up Lies to further the story.  There have been very few people defending the Adult.  That is up until now that the truth is coming out and people are seeing its not as cut and dry as it was first reported


----------



## billc

"Pursue," is an interesting word.  If he ran after Martin, drew his weapon and tried to "hold" him for police, that would be one thing.  If by "pursue," it is meant that he followed at a distance so that he could tell the police where the guy went, that is a different story.  Once again, the main point is who touched who first.  If Zimmerman pulled the pistol and threatened martin first, he's in trouble.  Since they both had the right to be in the public area of the gated community, I don't see how it matters if Zimmerman was following martin.  As long as he didn't touch or draw the pistol, it was an open, common area, in a place where zimmerman actually lived and martin was visiting.  The words "chased" and "pursue" are loaded and imply things that we can't know about.  The word "followed" would be a good word that might actually be more accurate.  Which word is more accurate still remains to be seen.

As far as heat goes, a friend of mine just returned from Africa.  He said the people there were freezing on the few days the temperature went down to 70 degrees, most days I guess it was well over 100 degrees,  and they were mystified how he could wear shorts when the temperature was so chilly.


----------



## Wo Fat

So I'll ask again:

What is racism and how does it manifest?


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> So I'll ask again:
> 
> What is racism and how does it manifest?


You tell me


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> You tell me



Well, I think that's part of our problem; the presumption that one can *tell* another what racism is, and that another can *tell* him or her that it does not exist.  It's one thing to know and learn what racism is.  And it's quite another to deny it's existence whenever possible.  The good/bad thing is that racism takes many forms; from the obvious to the sublime.  

While it's easy to reference wiki, it is a decent start:

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


----------



## billc

Hmmm...and now there is this...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/06/NBC-News-seven-calls-no-racism



> [h=2]After selectively editing George Zimmerman to look racist in front of the entire country, and then following that abomination up with a whitewash investigation, NBC News is now reporting that over seven calls to police George Zimmerman made between August 2011 and February 2012, there was no racism:[/h]In the seven phone calls that George Zimmerman made to the Sanford, Fla., non-emergency police line between August 2011 and February 2012, he never mentioned the race of a person he deemed suspicious before he was asked.
> According to the report by NBC News, the volunteer neighborhood watchman sounded calm on the phone when he described the men.​NBC News adds:
> Zimmerman mentioned race only when the dispatcher asked him to specify, a fact that could bode well for the 28-year-old who has come under fire for shooting the unarmed black teenager in his gated community.​Gee, ya' think, employer of Al Sharpton?
> The release of this new information does invite a question or two: Will this story lead all the NBC News broadcasts? Will this new information get as much play and viral-osity in the rest of the corrupt media as did the maliciously edited 911 tape created by a "senior" producer who will not be named and who still has a job?



And so the racism angle to this story slowly becomes less and less likely as more and more comes out about Zimmerman...He didn't use the "C" word but the "cold," or "punk" word, he was asked what race martin was by the authority figure on 911...does this still mean he executed this kid because martin was black?  Hmmmm...


----------



## Cryozombie

You know watching the CNN clip above where they just repeated the same thing over and over... it really sounds to me like before the F-bomb, he says "it's".  Could be because of the way they edited it, I haven't hear the whole recording.  If he did say "it's" then Cold makes a hell of a lot more sense... 

I'mma throw my two cents into the ring here... 

1: Based on what we believe we know, I don't think Zimmerman is innocent.  This is, again, MY OPINION based on what I BELIEVE we know.  It is subject to change.

2: However... _*IF*_ it's true that Trayvon had him down and was beating his head into the ground... I can't fault him for his action, because if that were so Trayvon went WELL beyond the realm of self defense, even if he started that way... I think most all of us would agree to that. 

3: The notion that some people are putting forward that Zimmerman is a big guy and Trayvon is just a little one, so Zimmerman could not have been in any danger is, really, quite laughable.  As martial artists how can we even pretend to foster the truth of that? 

4: Concluding, as some have done that Zimmerman isn't racist because he isn't actually white is, frankly silly.  Hispanics can hate Blacks, Blacks can hate Hispanics, etc... contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be a Hetero White Christian Male, to be a (Insert bias/bigotry here).


----------



## yorkshirelad

Greeting everyone! I know, I've been away for a while, but here I am with my view on the Trayvon case:
I have to say, I'm not a fan of Neighbourhood Watch. In many cases, it begins with the best intentions, but starts to get insidious when you're questioned about the dubious looking tatted guys who visit you on a regualr occurance.
Now, zimmerman was told, full well by the 911 dispatcher, not to follow Trayvon, period. Zimmerman took it upon himself to play cop, and followed Trayvon with a weapon in hand. Trayvon had a right to be there, was by himself, and, as he was moving away from Zimmerman, he posed no threat.
Now we get to the point of the story, where Trayvon was "seen" attacking Zimmerman and getting the upper hand. Now, before I go on, most of you know my view s on race in the US, I am by no mean a fan of Sharpton and his race baiting crew. That being said, if a black man in a black neighbourhood followed a white teen, with a pistol in hand, and confronted him. Then if the white teen fought with him, and got shot in the process, the black guy, even considering the "stand your ground" law would be in prison on a death penalty rap.
Trayvon saw a man with a weapon in hand, and decided to try to defend himself, period!


----------



## yorkshirelad

elder999 said:


> CCW holder who took home the 9mm he used to shoot a 17 year old boy.



It's guys like this who get laws changed, making it harder for decent people to obtain a CCW.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

yorkshirelad said:


> Greeting everyone! I know, I've been away for a while, but here I am with my view on the Trayvon case:
> I have to say, I'm not a fan of Neighbourhood Watch. In many cases, it begins with the best intentions, but starts to get insidious when you're questioned about the dubious looking tatted guys who visit you on a regualr occurance.



And how does that deny anyone their rights?  By all accounts, the neighborhood had suffered a number of recent break-ins.  The appropriate response would be to *not* have a Neighborhood Watch program?



> Now, zimmerman was told, full well by the 911 dispatcher, not to follow Trayvon, period.



A) No, he wasn't.  The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, Zimmerman said he was, and the dispatcher said " OK, we don't need you to do that."  That's not an order, that's a statement that the police do not require Zimmerman to follow Martin.  He is not told not to do it, just that it isn't necessary.

B) The dispatcher cannot give orders to citizens.



> Zimmerman took it upon himself to play cop, and followed Trayvon with a weapon in hand.



Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow Martin anyway.  I do not know he was 'playing cop' and neither do you.  I don't know he had his weapon in his had; the last I heard he said it was holstered until he drew it and shot Martin.



> Trayvon had a right to be there, was by himself, and, as he was moving away from Zimmerman, he posed no threat.



Martin had a right to be there, and so did Zimmerman.  Neither was breaking the law prior to the incident.  As to whether or not he was 'moving away' from Zimmerman or posed a threat, again, I have no idea.  I don't think you do either.



> Now we get to the point of the story, where Trayvon was "seen" attacking Zimmerman and getting the upper hand. Now, before I go on, most of you know my view s on race in the US, I am by no mean a fan of Sharpton and his race baiting crew. That being said, if a black man in a black neighbourhood followed a white teen, with a pistol in hand, and confronted him. Then if the white teen fought with him, and got shot in the process, the black guy, even considering the "stand your ground" law would be in prison on a death penalty rap.
> Trayvon saw a man with a weapon in hand, and decided to try to defend himself, period!



That's an interesting opinion.  So far, it's not backed by any facts, so it appears to be conjecture.  I'd be interested to know how you got from the known facts to your final opinion.

But bottom line, even by your description, if Zimmerman was there legally and not breaking the law, and Martin attacked him (as Zimmerman stated happened), if Zimmerman reasonably felt himself in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to defend himself with lethal force.  The only way that would not be case would be if a) Zimmerman is lying and was not attacked by Martin or b) Zimmerman was not reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm or c) Zimmerman was there illegally after all.  I don't think any of that has been shown as of yet.  If there is such evidence, I have yet to see it.


----------



## yorkshirelad

Bill, 
I have a problem with Neighbourhood Watch programs. To me, it's not about rights, it's about annoyance. Many times these programs are begun with the best of intentions, and then become a hobby for wannabee tough guys who have nothing better to do with their time.
It seems that Neighbourhood Watch, on occasion turns into Neighbourhood Follow and Shoot the guy who looks out of place.

Bill, you seem to work largely on semantic. Yes, a 911 dispatcher has no right to order a citizen not to follow a suspicious individual, but he was advised not to. Then he made a racial slur and proceeded to do so anywhere. Zimmerman, at the very least, let his testosterone get the better of him. It does not look good for him to have followed Trayvon, given that Trayvon posed no apparent threat to him.

Oh, and Bill, I know that Trayvon was walking away from Zimmerman, because you cannot follow someone who is walking toward you. It is simply impossible.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

yorkshirelad said:


> Bill,
> I have a problem with Neighbourhood Watch programs. To me, it's not about rights, it's about annoyance. Many times these programs are begun with the best of intentions, and then become a hobby for wannabee tough guys who have nothing better to do with their time.



Hasn't been my experience.



> It seems that Neighbourhood Watch, on occasion turns into Neighbourhood Follow and Shoot the guy who looks out of place.



Like when?



> Bill, you seem to work largely on semantic. Yes, a 911 dispatcher has no right to order a citizen not to follow a suspicious individual, but he was advised not to. Then he made a racial slur and proceeded to do so anywhere. Zimmerman, at the very least, let his testosterone get the better of him. It does not look good for him to have followed Trayvon, given that Trayvon posed no apparent threat to him.



Regardless of how it 'looks', it's legal.  That's the important bit for law enforcement purposes.

And I think the 'racial slur' thing isn't panning out.  Seems CNN has stated that after saying it was, they have enhanced the audio and now say it wasn't.  Regardless, that also has no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman was within his rights to use deadly force.



> Oh, and Bill, I know that Trayvon was walking away from Zimmerman, because you cannot follow someone who is walking toward you. It is simply impossible.



From Zimmerman's statement to police, he was following Taylor, lost sight of him, exited his vehicle, could not find him, and was 'jumped' by Taylor as he returned to his vehicle.  Whether that happened or not, I cannot say.  But if his statement is true, then yes, you can follow someone and have them approach you; by losing them.  Zimmerman could absolutely be lying; but his is the only statement we have.


----------



## MJS

As a dispatcher myself, I've told people to do or not do certain things many times.  Its usually something for their own good, ie: husband and wife domestic.  Wife calls the cops.  I always make a point of telling the person I'm talking to, to stay away from the other person...go to another room, leave the house and wait outside, etc.  Whether or not they do that, is totally out of my control.  

However, I have to agree with yorkshirelad.  I've said it myself....IMO, Zimmerman was a wanna be.  Alot of "security type people" are the same.  Alot of the time, they tend to over step what they're supposed to do vs. what they're not supposed to do.  And before anyone says I dont know what i'm talking about, I worked in security for an insurance co. here in CT.  I wasn't a cop.  I was there to help the employees, visitors, and to deter people.  But if I was driving thru a parking lot and saw someone breaking into a car, I'm certainly not going to get out and confront the person.  I'd simply call in what I was seeing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> As a dispatcher myself, I've told people to do or not do certain things many times.  Its usually something for their own good, ie: husband and wife domestic.  Wife calls the cops.  I always make a point of telling the person I'm talking to, to stay away from the other person...go to another room, leave the house and wait outside, etc.  Whether or not they do that, is totally out of my control.



I have also been a dispatcher for a largish metro police department...I have the same experiences you have had, and I agree with you.



> However, I have to agree with yorkshirelad.  I've said it myself....IMO, Zimmerman was a wanna be.  Alot of "security type people" are the same.  Alot of the time, they tend to over step what they're supposed to do vs. what they're not supposed to do.  And before anyone says I dont know what i'm talking about, I worked in security for an insurance co. here in CT.  I wasn't a cop.  I was there to help the employees, visitors, and to deter people.  But if I was driving thru a parking lot and saw someone breaking into a car, I'm certainly not going to get out and confront the person.  I'd simply call in what I was seeing.



I'm not disagreeing.  I'm staying it's largely irrelevant to potential criminal charges.


----------



## ballen0351

Haa people dont listen to me when Im in full uniform, armed, and standing right in front of them why would you expect anyone to listen to someone on the phone.


----------



## billc

Here is a question for the LEO's on martial talk, If I am in a public area and just following someone, not touching in anyway, have I broken any law or can I be arrested for any reason?  My point is still, they were both in a public space, both had the legal right to be there since Zimmerman lived there and Martin was visiting.  The guy who touched the other guy first initiated the fight.  Right...


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ballen0351 said:


> Haa people dont listen to me when Im in full uniform, armed, and standing right in front of them why would you expect anyone to listen to someone on the phone.



I think people tend to believe that the police can give orders to citizens, and that if a person fails to obey that order, they are breaking the law.  Well, anyone can give anyone an order; the question is, what happens if someone refuses to obey that order?  Are they breaking the law?

In some cases, it may be true; such as 'move along' orders.  Failure to comply can lead to arrest.  Other cases are not as clear.  And dispatchers, in many jurisdictions, are not sworn officers.  Such dispatchers could under no circumstances given anyone a lawful order.

And all of that is quite aside from the fact that the dispatcher did not actually order Zimmerman not to follow Martin.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

billcihak said:


> Here is a question for the LEO's on martial talk, If I am in a public area and just following someone, not touching in anyway, have I broken any law or can I be arrested for any reason?  My point is still, they were both in a public space, both had the legal right to be there since Zimmerman lived there and Martin was visiting.  The guy who touched the other guy first initiated the fight.  Right...



There are anti-stalking laws and laws against harassment; a person can certainly expose themselves to such charges by following someone around.  It generally takes more than a casual encounter of this sort to bring charges such as that, however.  IANAL, and not a LEO in a long time.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ballen0351

billcihak said:


> Here is a question for the LEO's on martial talk, If I am in a public area and just following someone, not touching in anyway, have I broken any law or can I be arrested for any reason?



Every state is different but here people can go anywhere you can go as long as they not on private property . They can park their car outside your house and sit there for hours if they want and there is nothing you can do as long as they are on a public street.


----------



## ballen0351

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think people tend to believe that the police can give orders to citizens, and that if a person fails to obey that order, they are breaking the law.  Well, anyone can give anyone an order; the question is, what happens if someone refuses to obey that order?  Are they breaking the law?


Depends on the state but here we have a law "Fail to Obey a lawful order of a Law Enforcement Officer."  Its the Lawful Order part that is always questioned in court.  Was what I told you to do legal?



> And dispatchers, in many jurisdictions, are not sworn officers.  Such dispatchers could under no circumstances given anyone a lawful order.


True here they are not sworn and even if they were Im not sure you could order someone to do anything over the phone.  



> And all of that is quite aside from the fact that the dispatcher did not actually order Zimmerman not to follow Martin.


Your correct just another lie to add to the list the news media has put out to sell more air time and papers on this case.


----------



## zDom

billcihak said:


> The guy who touched the other guy first initiated the fight.  Right...




I don't think so.

Assault can happen BEFORE physical contact: "an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force" as Wikipedia puts it.

Battery is once physical contact has been made.


If someone has got an angry look on their face, is telling me they are going to kick my *** and is balling up their fist and pulling it back, you are suggesting that I have to wait till he makes CONTACT before defending myself?


"Who touched who first" is a fallacy.


----------



## billc

Is that from the actual legal code, just asking?  At this point we have Martin saying he was being followed, and nothing else.  We don't even have...



> If someone has got an angry look on their face, is telling me they are  going to kick my *** and is balling up their fist and pulling it back,  you are suggesting that I have to wait till he makes CONTACT before  defending myself?



 We don't know that there was any "pulling back of a fist or even an angry look on anyones face to provide a motive for the escalation that occurred.  

Now coming out is the map of the scene and the distances involved in the movements of Zimmerman and Martin.  I don't think the truth here is going to matter much any way.  It is an election year and obama and Holder aren't going to let this big case get away from them, but we will see.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

As far as I can tell, there are many possible reasonable interpretations of the sequence of events leading up to the shooting.  However, I do not think that any of them can be proven, including whether or not Zimmerman is lying about his account of events.

At issue is not whether or not Martin was in the area legally; *he was*.
At issue is not whether or not Zimmerman was in the area legally; *he was*.

All of that is beside the noise and sturm-und-drang surrounding motives like racism and wanna-be-cop-ism and whatever else.  None of that matters for the purposes of determining whether or not Zimmerman was legally permitted to fire his weapon and kill Martin.

To know the answer to that, however, we have to know things that may not be knowable.  And that, I am sure, is frosting a lot of people's biscuits, not to mention the anguish and pain it has to be causing the family of Martin and Zimmerman (for different reasons).

If Zimmerman's account of the sequence of events from the moment he left his vehicle to the time he fired his weapon are correct, then I do not believe the state has anything with which to charge him.  If what he said was true, then a 'reasonable' mean who was having his head pounded into the pavement by a person on top of him would be reasonably in fear of his life and legally justified in the state of Florida in defending himself with lethal force.  I just don't see any other way around that.

If, however, Zimmerman is lying about the sequence of events after he left his truck, then he may well have stepped well outside the boundaries of Florida's self-defense laws.  He could be charged with a criminal offense, and given the public and media attention on this case, I am sure he would be.

The problem is that there are no eye-witnesses to the moments immediately prior to the shooting except those who generally back up what Zimmerman claims happened.  One witness, as I understand it, saw two men struggling on the ground.  That does not mean Martin was on top or Zimmerman was on top, but it agrees with Zimmerman's statement that there was a fight on the ground.  There are no witnesses, and no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Zimmerman was on top of Martin.

There is no one to contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin approached him as he made is way back to his truck after losing sight of him.  No one and no evidence that I am aware of can place Zimmerman tracking, stalking, or engaging Martin outside of Zimmerman's truck when both were on foot.  We only have Zimmerman's statement.

In the end, I think the possibility of a criminal charge against Zimmerman comes down to any evidence which would tend to contradict Zimmerman's story.  Since there does not appear to be any, I do not think Zimmerman will be charged with a crime.

That does not mean I think he is not guilty.  I just don't think there is even enough evidence at the moment (that I know of) to support criminal charges, let alone obtain a conviction.

I know that chaps a lot of asses, but I don't know how else it could end.  The other things people keep tossing around are noise, they have virtually no meaning in a criminal case.  He's a racist?  That might go to motive, but motive isn't evidence.  And there isn't even much if any evidence of that.  He was ordered by the police dispatcher not to follow Martin?  No, it's pretty clear that didn't happen, not to mention the fact that dispatchers can't give citizens lawful orders, especially over the phone.  Martin was the one attacked?  Definitely possible, but again, no proof.  Martin was in the area legally and wasn't committing any crimes?  True but irrelevant. 

I only hope that when the DA and the state and the feds all agree that there is no crime they can charge anyone with, that there is not a violent response on the part of the public who hunger for an arrest, prosecution, and conviction.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not disagreeing. I'm staying it's largely irrelevant to potential criminal charges.



But, as its been said, his actions could be deemed criminal.  Harassing, stalking....I dont know the FL laws, so who knows if that would apply.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> As far as I can tell, there are many possible reasonable interpretations of the sequence of events leading up to the shooting. However, I do not think that any of them can be proven, including whether or not Zimmerman is lying about his account of events.
> 
> At issue is not whether or not Martin was in the area legally; *he was*.
> At issue is not whether or not Zimmerman was in the area legally; *he was*.
> 
> All of that is beside the noise and sturm-und-drang surrounding motives like racism and wanna-be-cop-ism and whatever else. None of that matters for the purposes of determining whether or not Zimmerman was legally permitted to fire his weapon and kill Martin.
> 
> To know the answer to that, however, we have to know things that may not be knowable. And that, I am sure, is frosting a lot of people's biscuits, not to mention the anguish and pain it has to be causing the family of Martin and Zimmerman (for different reasons).
> 
> If Zimmerman's account of the sequence of events from the moment he left his vehicle to the time he fired his weapon are correct, then I do not believe the state has anything with which to charge him. If what he said was true, then a 'reasonable' mean who was having his head pounded into the pavement by a person on top of him would be reasonably in fear of his life and legally justified in the state of Florida in defending himself with lethal force. I just don't see any other way around that.
> 
> If, however, Zimmerman is lying about the sequence of events after he left his truck, then he may well have stepped well outside the boundaries of Florida's self-defense laws. He could be charged with a criminal offense, and given the public and media attention on this case, I am sure he would be.
> 
> The problem is that there are no eye-witnesses to the moments immediately prior to the shooting except those who generally back up what Zimmerman claims happened. One witness, as I understand it, saw two men struggling on the ground. That does not mean Martin was on top or Zimmerman was on top, but it agrees with Zimmerman's statement that there was a fight on the ground. There are no witnesses, and no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that Zimmerman was on top of Martin.
> 
> There is no one to contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin approached him as he made is way back to his truck after losing sight of him. No one and no evidence that I am aware of can place Zimmerman tracking, stalking, or engaging Martin outside of Zimmerman's truck when both were on foot. We only have Zimmerman's statement.
> 
> In the end, I think the possibility of a criminal charge against Zimmerman comes down to any evidence which would tend to contradict Zimmerman's story. Since there does not appear to be any, I do not think Zimmerman will be charged with a crime.
> 
> That does not mean I think he is not guilty. I just don't think there is even enough evidence at the moment (that I know of) to support criminal charges, let alone obtain a conviction.
> 
> I know that chaps a lot of asses, but I don't know how else it could end. The other things people keep tossing around are noise, they have virtually no meaning in a criminal case. He's a racist? That might go to motive, but motive isn't evidence. And there isn't even much if any evidence of that. He was ordered by the police dispatcher not to follow Martin? No, it's pretty clear that didn't happen, not to mention the fact that dispatchers can't give citizens lawful orders, especially over the phone. Martin was the one attacked? Definitely possible, but again, no proof. Martin was in the area legally and wasn't committing any crimes? True but irrelevant.
> 
> I only hope that when the DA and the state and the feds all agree that there is no crime they can charge anyone with, that there is not a violent response on the part of the public who hunger for an arrest, prosecution, and conviction.



Well, as usual Bill, good points.   I too, have asked, earlier in this thread, if Zimmerman was legally justified to carry and shoot.  And you're right...there's probably ALOT we don't know, and will never know.  Martin is dead...can't ask him.  Zimmerman of course, whether he was right or wrong, would probably never admit any wrong doing, so that theory is dead.  As for witnesses....well, I wonder...was there a witness that saw this whole thing go down?  I'm not talking about someone who heard a scream or some disturbance.  I'm talking about a start to finish eye witness?  IMO, someone peeking out their door, once they heard yelling, is not a solid witness.  Why?  Because they're only seeing part of the story.  It'd be like coming in at the 1hr mark of a 2hr movie and be expected to give an accurate description of the whole thing.


----------



## ballen0351

According to the specially assigned prosecutor there will me no murder charge for zimmerman


----------



## ballen0351

Depends on where you are.  Maryland got rid of assault and battery laws years ago.  Now we just have 1st or 2nd deg. Assault. Its notillegal to make threats here.  I can say anything i want except make a threat of arson.  I can threaten to murder or rapeyou but not burn down your shed.




zDom said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> Assault can happen BEFORE physical contact: "an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force" as Wikipedia puts it.
> 
> Battery is once physical contact has been made.
> 
> 
> If someone has got an angry look on their face, is telling me they are going to kick my *** and is balling up their fist and pulling it back, you are suggesting that I have to wait till he makes CONTACT before defending myself?
> 
> 
> "Who touched who first" is a fallacy.


----------



## oftheherd1

MJS said:


> But, as its been said, his actions could be deemed criminal.  Harassing, stalking....I dont know the FL laws, so who knows if that would apply.



I don't know Florida law either, but as a neighborhood watch person, he would probably not be deemed to be stalking, and even harassing would be a stretch if he is only following and observing.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Depends on where you are.  Maryland got rid of assault and battery laws years ago.  Now we just have 1st or 2nd deg. Assault. Its notillegal to make threats here.  I can say anything i want except make a threat of arson.  I can threaten to murder or rapeyou but not burn down your shed.



That's interesting. How come the distinction?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ballen0351 said:


> According to the specially assigned prosecutor there will me no murder charge for zimmerman



Are you certain?  I read that the prosecutor was not going to convene a Grand Jury, which means that First Degree Murder (and the potential of a death penalty) is no longer an option, but it leaves the prosecutor to decide for herself what to charge him with (if anything) up to but not including Murder One.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> That's interesting. How come the distinction?



1st deg is serious  bodily harm or the use of a weapon.  2nd deg is like a shove, punch, kick, where nobody is really hurt or not seriously and no weapon is involved.


----------



## oftheherd1

ballen0351 said:


> Depends on where you are. Maryland got rid of assault and battery laws years ago. Now we just have 1st or 2nd deg. Assault. Its notillegal to make threats here. I can say anything i want except make a threat of arson. I can threaten to murder or rapeyou but not burn down your shed.



I don't know Maryland law either, but I was told by a resident that he can stand in front of a person all day long and make threats without a law violation.  But if he calls a person on the telephone and makes a threat, that is a violation of law.

Is that correct?  If so, any idea what the legislators had in mind as to why the distinction was important?


----------



## ballen0351

Bill Mattocks said:


> Are you certain?  I read that the prosecutor was not going to convene a Grand Jury, which means that First Degree Murder (and the potential of a death penalty) is no longer an option, but it leaves the prosecutor to decide for herself what to charge him with (if anything) up to but not including Murder One.



 I just heard on the news last night they were not charging him with Murder but other charges could still happen at a later date.  They didnt break it down the way you did so You may be more accurate.  The news just said he wasnt getting charged with Murder.


----------



## ballen0351

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know Maryland law either, but I was told by a resident that he can stand in front of a person all day long and make threats without a law violation.  But if he calls a person on the telephone and makes a threat, that is a violation of law.
> 
> Is that correct?  If so, any idea what the legislators had in mind as to why the distinction was important?


Yes and no.  You can say anything you want to a person except a threat of arson.  You can call all you want as well until a person says dont call me again then it becomes telephone misuse and is a crime.  I believe and Im not 100% sure on this but I was told it was because back when the law was passed before all these free airtime min. you could run up peoples phone bills as a form of harrassment by calling them over and over and over but it does not cost anyone anything if you just do it to there face. But until you actually say "stop calling me" they can call as much as you want.


----------



## ballen0351

As to harrassment and stalking that normally needs to be a continuing course of conduct.  Meaning I cant harrass or stalk you if I only follow you or do something to you once.  Like in the Zimmerman case this was the first time he had ever followed Martin so it wouldnt be harrassment.  It needs to happen more then once. Now Fla law might be different but I know alot of states are like this.


----------



## zDom

Anybody remember seeing this on the news or the demonstrations that followed?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=679_1332640868


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know Florida law either, but as a neighborhood watch person, he would probably not be deemed to be stalking, and even harassing would be a stretch if he is only following and observing.



Neighbourhood watch has no special status. He is just another civilian.


----------



## ballen0351

zDom said:


> Anybody remember seeing this on the news or the demonstrations that followed?
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=679_1332640868



Nope never saw that one that sucked to be him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

CanuckMA said:


> Neighbourhood watch has no special status. He is just another civilian.



That's correct.  However, when a person is accused of stalking or harassment, being able to give a 'reasonable' explanation of why they are doing what they are doing can make a difference.  It gives no special powers, that is quite true.

For example, a mall security guard follows around a car in the parking lot.  The person driving the car becomes upset, calls police, and accuses the guard of 'stalking' or 'harassing' him.  The guard has no special powers either; but he has a reasonable explanation for what he is doing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking



> In most states, to charge and convict a defendant of stalking, several elements must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. These elements include a course of conduct or behavior, the presence of threats, and the criminal intent to cause fear in the victim.
> 
> A course of conduct is a series of acts that, viewed collectively, present a pattern of behavior. Some states stipulate the requisite number of acts, with several requiring the stalker to commit two or more acts. States designate as stalking a variety of acts, ranging from specifically defined actions, such as nonconsensual communication or lying in wait, to more general types of action, such as harassment.
> 
> Most states require that the stalker pose a threat or act in a way that causes a reasonable person to feel fearful. The threat does not have to be written or verbal to instill fear. For example, a stalker can convey a threat by sending the victim black roses, forming his hand into a gun and pointing it at her, or delivering a dead animal to her doorstep.
> 
> To be convicted of stalking in most states, the stalker must display a criminal intent to cause fear in the victim. Various statutes require the conduct of the stalker to be "willful," "purposeful," "intentional," or "knowing." Many states do not require proof that the defendant intended to cause fear as long as he intended to commit the act that resulted in fear. In these states, if the victim is reasonably frightened by the alleged perpetrator's conduct, the intent element of the crime has been met.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

Harassment as well tends to depend upon a systemic or continued unwanted presence.  For example, if Martin routinely made his way back and forth to the local convenience store, and Zimmerman was always there waiting for him and following him wherever he went.


----------



## shesulsa

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's correct.  However, when a person is accused of stalking or harassment, being able to give a 'reasonable' explanation of why they are doing what they are doing can make a difference.  It gives no special powers, that is quite true.
> 
> For example, a mall security guard follows around a car in the parking lot.  The person driving the car becomes upset, calls police, and accuses the guard of 'stalking' or 'harassing' him.  The guard has no special powers either; but he has a reasonable explanation for what he is doing.
> 
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking
> 
> 
> 
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
> 
> Harassment as well tends to depend upon a systemic or continued unwanted presence.  For example, if Martin routinely made his way back and forth to the local convenience store, and Zimmerman was always there waiting for him and following him wherever he went.



Your comparison is flawed as a security officer in a mall generally has a uniform.  Zimmerman wore nothing to suggest he were acting in any kind of official manner that we can tell from the police report we've been able to look at.

If I saw a mall cop following me, I'd assume he were suspicious of me and would understand (even though a security guard tried to rape me once).  If somebody with no uniform were following me and asking me what I was doing around here, I'd likely flip him off. Of course, I'd probably call the cops, but I'M AN ADULT WHO DOESN'T THINK NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN TO ME.


----------



## MJS

Did the neighborhood in which Zimmerman was 'patrolling' actually have an official watch group in place?  Does anything have to be documented with the PD, city,town, etc, before something is put into place?  

Not sure if any of that matters of not, but I thought it was said somewhere that he wasn't a part of an official watch group.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

shesulsa said:


> Your comparison is flawed as a security officer in a mall generally has a uniform.  Zimmerman wore nothing to suggest he were acting in any kind of official manner that we can tell from the police report we've been able to look at.
> 
> If I saw a mall cop following me, I'd assume he were suspicious of me and would understand (even though a security guard tried to rape me once).  If somebody with no uniform were following me and asking me what I was doing around here, I'd likely flip him off. Of course, I'd probably call the cops, but I'M AN ADULT WHO DOESN'T THINK NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN TO ME.



Store detective, then.  Same argument.  Stalking just doesn't apply.  He *is* just a citizen as you said.  No special powers.  Nobody has any special powers, except the actual police.  That does not mean a citizen cannot follow a person around if they've got a good reason to do it.  As was previously mentioned, I can park in front of your house for days if I want to, watch you coming and going, scribble down notes and take photos.  All perfectly legal.  You probably would not like it, but it's not stalking or harassment.  Especially if I have a 'reasonable explanation' for doing so, like your spouse hired me as a private investigator to do so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> Did the neighborhood in which Zimmerman was 'patrolling' actually have an official watch group in place?  Does anything have to be documented with the PD, city,town, etc, before something is put into place?
> 
> Not sure if any of that matters of not, but I thought it was said somewhere that he wasn't a part of an official watch group.



Apparently so:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

However, the city neither claims he was a member nor states he wasn't.  I can only surmise that if there was no such group, or if he was not a member, they'd have said so.  Since they mention it and don't state he wasn't a member, I have to conclude that he is.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html

There is also a link on their page to Neighborhood Watch information; which again does not say they have one, but it sure seems as if they would, since they provide the information.


EDIT: Correction, they do have an official Neighborhood Watch program: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/police/index.html


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Breaking news related to the case?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ot-neighborhood-teen-killed-article-1.1059140



> Trayvon Martin case: Empty police car shot up in neighborhood where teen was killed
> No one was injured, and the shooting is under investigation








> Several shots were fired at an empty city police cruiser around 4:30 a.m. Tuesday morning. Witnesses reported hearing at least six gunshots, according to multiple local media reports.
> 
> The police car was parked near the site where Martin was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman on Feb. 26. Zimmerman claims he acted in self-defense, and has not been arrested or charged with a crime &#8212; a fact that has sparked protests nationwide.
> 
> The cruiser had been parked across from Sanford&#8217;s Bentley Elementary for several weeks at the school's request, according to The Associated Press.
> 
> In a statement, Sanford police said it was being used as "a visible deterrent due to tour buses using the school property to park during the day and evening hours."
> 
> The shots hit the car's windshield, pierced its hood, and shattered one of its windows, police told Fox Orlando.





> Protesters blockaded Sanford Police Department headquarters on Monday, temporarily shutting down the station.
> 
> Since Martin's shooting, the city has become a magnet for racially charged gestures. Members of the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement have pledged to protect Sanford's "white citizens" in the event of a race riot. The New Black Panther Party had earlier announced a $10,000 bounty for George Zimmerman's capture.


----------



## CanuckMA

Bill Mattocks said:


> Store detective, then.  Same argument.  Stalking just doesn't apply.  He *is* just a citizen as you said.  No special powers.  Nobody has any special powers, except the actual police.  That does not mean a citizen cannot follow a person around if they've got a good reason to do it.  As was previously mentioned, I can park in front of your house for days if I want to, watch you coming and going, scribble down notes and take photos.  All perfectly legal.  You probably would not like it, but it's not stalking or harassment.  Especially if I have a 'reasonable explanation' for doing so, like your spouse hired me as a private investigator to do so.




The store devtive is an employee of a private corporation. A private detective has been hired for a specific task. A neighbourhood watch is still a civiian following another civilian on public property.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

CanuckMA said:


> The store devtive is an employee of a private corporation. A private detective has been hired for a specific task. A neighbourhood watch is still a civiian following another civilian on public property.



Doesn't matter what a person is hired for by a private agency; they have the same authority as any citizen; no more, no less.  Same for Neighborhood Watch.  You seem to be looking for some in-between state of legal authority between police and everybody else.  There isn't any that I am aware of.  Let me put it another way; Zimmerman could have been a private security guard hired by the gated community and his authority to follow people around would still have been the same; which is to say the same every citizen has.  It would not change his status in any way.  Only sworn police officers have police authority.  But for the most part, just your regular citizen has all the authority he needs to go where he wants and do what he wants, so long as he does infringe on the rights of others.  Follow someone around?  Hey, he could dress up like Deputy Dawg and follow guys around in his housing area if he wants to.  It's legal.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> Apparently so:
> 
> http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
> 
> However, the city neither claims he was a member nor states he wasn't.  I can only surmise that if there was no such group, or if he was not a member, they'd have said so.  Since they mention it and don't state he wasn't a member, I have to conclude that he is.
> 
> http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html
> 
> There is also a link on their page to Neighborhood Watch information; which again does not say they have one, but it sure seems as if they would, since they provide the information.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Correction, they do have an official Neighborhood Watch program: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/police/index.html



I'm curious, and if it was there, I may've just missed it, but I'm wondering if there is a policy/rule set that the members of the watch group, have to follow.  Following and reporting are one thing, but engaging the person you're following, IMO, takes it to a different level.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> Breaking news related to the case?
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ot-neighborhood-teen-killed-article-1.1059140
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 16286



What a bunch of *******s!  Blocking the entrance to the PD..LOL...I love how the cops just locked the doors, ignored them and used the rear entrance.  Shooting up the car....like I said...*******s!  This is proving what?  I swear, some members of the public really are ****ing stupid!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> I'm curious, and if it was there, I may've just missed it, but I'm wondering if there is a policy/rule set that the members of the watch group, have to follow.  Following and reporting are one thing, but engaging the person you're following, IMO, takes it to a different level.



Yes, the rules for Neighborhood watch are to observe and report.  They are not to engage suspects at all.  There is nothing about members of Neighborhood Watch being armed, either.

However, one also has to consider this - Zimmerman was, according to his statements and that of his family; on the way to the store.  Armed legally with a concealed weapon.  Neighborhood Watch OK with that?  No, but a private citizen with a CCW can do it, which Zimmerman was.  In other words, he didn't stop having a CCW because he was a member of Neighborhood Watch.  And his choice to engage?  Again, Zimmerman claimed he didn't; he said he was engaged when he got out of his truck to see if he could spot Martin when he originally lost sight of him.  He claimed he was returning to his truck when Martin came upon him, catching him by surprise and attacking him.  So again, according to him, he didn't 'engage' as a member of Neighborhood Watch or as a private citizen.

Consider also the Guardian Angels; they're still around.  They also follow people around. Some have legally concealed weapons.  They are also supposed to observe and report, not engage.  But a citizen doesn't lose his right to self-defense just because he's wearing a red beret that day, you know?  If attacked, he can still defend himself.



> What a bunch of *******s!  Blocking the entrance to the PD..LOL...I love how the cops just locked the doors, ignored them and used the rear entrance.  Shooting up the car....like I said...*******s!  This is proving what?  I swear, some members of the public really are ****ing stupid!



The whole thing is turning into a violent circus.  The New Black Panther Party is offering a 'dead or alive' bounty on Zimmerman, a White Supremacist group nobody ever heard of is claiming they are patrolling the neighborhood to make it 'safe for white people', and the whole thing is turning into a powder keg.


----------



## Carol

Bill Mattocks said:


> The whole thing is turning into a violent circus.  The New Black Panther Party is offering a 'dead or alive' bounty on Zimmerman, a White Supremacist group nobody ever heard of is claiming they are patrolling the neighborhood to make it 'safe for white people', and the whole thing is turning into a powder keg.



Yikes!!

And the next development, the state has brought in an aggressive prosecutor for the probe to determine whether charges should be filed against Zimmerman.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/justi...paign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Carol said:


> Yikes!!
> 
> And the next development, the state has brought in an aggressive prosecutor for the probe to determine whether charges should be filed against Zimmerman.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/justi...paign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)



That's fascinating, thank you!

It is interesting to me that in this particular case, the liberals are going to have to suck up to Corey, who would be their natural enemy with regard to the prosecuting the 12-year-old as an adult thing.  She appears to be a hardnose 'the law is the law' type, usually anathema to liberals.


EDIT:





> Discussing Florida's "stand your ground" law -- which allows people to use deadly force in situations in which they feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury -- Corey said, "our laws are very clear that it has to be a forcible felony and that a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force, fighting back and that sort of thing. I've prosecuted a woman who shot her husband and killed him because he slapped her, and we argued that was not deadly force and she was convicted and sent to state prison."



I would agree with her decision in the wife-slapping incident she discusses.  However, if *I* were on the ground, and my head was being pounded into the pavement by a person straddling me, I believe I would be in fear of my life, and I also believe that is a 'reasonable' belief to have.  Assuming that Zimmerman was and is telling the truth, that's how it seems to me at this time.
Let's see how it plays out.  If she prosecutes, they'll love her; but what about her other controversial stances?  If she doesn't, well, she's about the toughest DA they could find, so now what?


----------



## ballen0351

CanuckMA said:


> The store devtive is an employee of a private corporation. A private detective has been hired for a specific task. A neighbourhood watch is still a civiian following another civilian on public property.



Store security has no authority either.  They cant stop you detain you or touch you.  They can ask you to come to the back and call the police thats it.  If they touch you then you can charge them with assault.  Other states may be different but here at least i dream for the day some security guard grabs me when the cashier forgets to take off the security tag on something i bought.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Wow, busy day for Zimmerman:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/10/2741248/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw.html



> George Zimmerman&#8217;s lawyers withdraw from case, lose contact with Trayvon-case shooter
> BY FRANCES ROBLES
> frobles@MiamiHerald.com
> 
> George Zimmerman's attorneys withdrew from the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting case Tuesday, saying they have lost contact with their client, who began making moves without consulting them.
> 
> The lawyers said Zimmerman called special prosecutor Angela Corey on Tuesday, a highly unusual move for the target of an investigation who is being represented by a lawyer.
> 
> He made the call despite not having returned calls from his attorneys, Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig, since Sunday, Sonner said.
> 
> &#8220;He won&#8217;t even give me a collect call,&#8221; Sonner said.
> 
> He added that Zimmerman, who has left the state but not the country, also called Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity without talkibg to the lawyers.
> 
> Zimmerman also set up a website linked to a Paypal account that was different than the one the attorneys arranged through Zimmerman&#8217;s father, the lawyers said.



Now he's behaving like an idiot.


----------



## seasoned

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wow, busy day for Zimmerman:
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/10/2741248/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw.html
> 
> 
> 
> Now he's behaving like an idiot.



Going off half cocked will not bode well for him. Loose lips sink ships, or something like that.................


----------



## Bill Mattocks

seasoned said:


> Going off half cocked will not bode well for him. Loose lips sink ships, or something like that.................



Well, innocent or guilty, you don't call the DA on the phone for an unrepresented chat.  This guy must be in serious freak-out mode.


----------



## shesulsa

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wow, busy day for Zimmerman:
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/10/2741248/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw.html
> 
> 
> 
> Now he's behaving like an idiot.



_*COLOR*_ me shocked.


----------



## Wo Fat

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wow, busy day for Zimmerman:
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/10/2741248/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw.html
> 
> 
> 
> Now he's behaving like an idiot.



_*Now*_??  No, he's behaving like the nutjob that he has always appeared to be.  *Now*, the reality has set in and he knows that the wing nut blogosphere and race deniers can no longer defend him or his actions.


----------



## jks9199

ballen0351 said:


> Store security has no authority either.  They cant stop you detain you or touch you.  They can ask you to come to the back and call the police thats it.  If they touch you then you can charge them with assault.  Other states may be different but here at least i dream for the day some security guard grabs me when the cashier forgets to take off the security tag on something i bought.



Depends very much on state law.  In Virginia, they do have the authority to detain someone for a limited time, while they summon the police, IF they have probable cause to suspect shoplifting.


----------



## ballen0351

jks9199 said:


> Depends very much on state law.  In Virginia, they do have the authority to detain someone for a limited time, while they summon the police, IF they have probable cause to suspect shoplifting.



So if they resist do you charge the shopplifter with resisting arrest?  Do they have any training to detain people?  Sounds like a bad time waiting to happen having seen the caliber of some loss prevention employees Ive delt with.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, the rules for Neighborhood watch are to observe and report. They are not to engage suspects at all. There is nothing about members of Neighborhood Watch being armed, either.
> 
> However, one also has to consider this - Zimmerman was, according to his statements and that of his family; on the way to the store. Armed legally with a concealed weapon. Neighborhood Watch OK with that? No, but a private citizen with a CCW can do it, which Zimmerman was. In other words, he didn't stop having a CCW because he was a member of Neighborhood Watch. And his choice to engage? Again, Zimmerman claimed he didn't; he said he was engaged when he got out of his truck to see if he could spot Martin when he originally lost sight of him. He claimed he was returning to his truck when Martin came upon him, catching him by surprise and attacking him. So again, according to him, he didn't 'engage' as a member of Neighborhood Watch or as a private citizen.



I disagree with what Zimmerman is claiming.  He engaged the minute he decided to follow Martin.  I'm wondering too, what Martin was doing that was suspicious?  Has the ever been determined?  Wasnt he visiting friends in the area?  And I'm also questioning whether Martin actually attacked him.  Seems like theres doubt as to whether or not his head was actually injured.





> Consider also the Guardian Angels; they're still around. They also follow people around. Some have legally concealed weapons. They are also supposed to observe and report, not engage. But a citizen doesn't lose his right to self-defense just because he's wearing a red beret that day, you know? If attacked, he can still defend himself.



Absolutely.  In fact, I'd expect no less from someone, to defend themselves, were they to come under attack.  OTOH, I'm fairly certain the GA's are pretty well known, mainly by the uniform they wear.  They certainly stand out, dont you think?  What was Zimmerman wearing?  Average every day clothes?  Were someone following me, that was dressed in the same type of clothing as I, I'd think I was about to be the victim of a mugging.  

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

Yes, I'd feel 10 times more safe having the GAs patrol my neighborhood, rather than a bunch of Zimmermans! LOL!  I mean really, you can't even begin to compare the 2.





> The whole thing is turning into a violent circus. The New Black Panther Party is offering a 'dead or alive' bounty on Zimmerman, a White Supremacist group nobody ever heard of is claiming they are patrolling the neighborhood to make it 'safe for white people', and the whole thing is turning into a powder keg.



Yup, its definately a cluster.  And whats worse, is no matter the outcome, it'll still be a disaster.  Zimmerman gets off..holy ****, there will be riots in the street.  It'll be akin to Rodney King.  Zimmerman gets sent up the river....yeah, there'll be riots.  A no win situation all around, and the circus will be led by a bunch of idiot ringleaders, who think that rioting will somehow solve the problem.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Wo Fat said:


> _*Now*_??  No, he's behaving like the nutjob that he has always appeared to be.  *Now*, the reality has set in and he knows that the wing nut blogosphere and race deniers can no longer defend him or his actions.



Just for the record, I don't know what a race denier is.

And I've never defended Zimmerman.

And I don't know what his actions were, other than those that are not disputed.  If they were what he said they were, then I defend his actions as I would anyone in the same situation.  If not, then no.  But I don't know if he's lying or not.  Neither do you.

In any case, I've never said Zimmerman was innocent.  I said that it would be very difficult for the state to prove a criminal case.  Being found "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as "Innocent."  Not being prosecuted for lack of evidence also does not mean "Innocent."  Nor does it mean "Guilty."  It means what it says.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

jks9199 said:


> Depends very much on state law.  In Virginia, they do have the authority to detain someone for a limited time, while they summon the police, IF they have probable cause to suspect shoplifting.



In Colorado, the security guard must personally witness the suspect conceal the item on his or her person.  He does not have to wait for the suspect to exit the store, but he must keep the suspect under 100% total observation from the moment he sees the concealment to the moment he stops him.  And the stop is generally (most store policies) inside the store or not at all.  It requires a bit more than just PC.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ballen0351 said:


> So if they resist do you charge the shopplifter with resisting arrest?  Do they have any training to detain people?  Sounds like a bad time waiting to happen having seen the caliber of some loss prevention employees Ive delt with.



Security in Colorado is allowed to detain.  If they assault you, that's assault.  Can't charge them with resisting arrest, they're not under arrest; they're being detained for police.  It's a distinction without a difference, but there you go.  It was the same when I was a Marine MP at Camp Pendleton; I could 'detain' civilians for federal law enforcement, but not arrest them.  Same thing; they still wore my hand-irons and got thumped if they resisted 'detention'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ballen0351 said:


> So if they resist do you charge the shopplifter with resisting arrest?  Do they have any training to detain people?  Sounds like a bad time waiting to happen having seen the caliber of some loss prevention employees Ive delt with.



FYI, a citizen can do the same thing.  A security guard's detention is essentially citizen's arrest in that he has the same authority as any citizen; no more, no less.


----------



## billc

Do you mean the race deniers who are calling Zimmerman a "white," hispanic, in order to create a "race" problem with this case even if there isn't evidence that race was a factor in the incident.  As the "he was a racist," meme falls apart it would be nice if people focused on the non-race aspect of this, even as we go along without knowing exactly what happened.  How many more news agencies need to push the "race," agenda in this case, and be proven wrong, before we can get back on track?


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> I disagree with what Zimmerman is claiming.  He engaged the minute he decided to follow Martin.


Engaged how?  because he was following a strange person in his neighborhood?  Happens 1000's of times a day all over the country.  At least he takes pride in his neighborhood and wants to keep it safe.
[quote  I'm wondering too, what Martin was doing that was suspicious?  Has the ever been determined? [/quote] 

Strange person in the neighborhood.  Suspicious to you or I not so much but to others yes.  I live in a rual area and know most of the people from here.  If I see someone that does not look familiar Id take notice.  we have a bunch of day time burglaries here right now and I am home during the day so I may even follow and call in on someone around here if I dont know them.  


> Wasnt he visiting friends in the area?



Family I believe lived in the area if I remember.



> And I'm also questioning whether Martin actually attacked him.  Seems like theres doubt as to whether or not his head was actually injured.


Well according to the witness that saw it and Zimmerman's story he was.  BUT thats just what the news has reported so far and we know how great the reporting has been so far on this case.







> Absolutely.  In fact, I'd expect no less from someone, to defend themselves, were they to come under attack.  OTOH, I'm fairly certain the GA's are pretty well known, mainly by the uniform they wear.  They certainly stand out, dont you think?


Sure do they are pretty easy to spot



> What was Zimmerman wearing?  Average every day clothes?  Were someone following me, that was dressed in the same type of clothing as I, I'd think I was about to be the victim of a mugging.


So every time you walk down the street and someone is behind you in every day clothes walking the same way you feel like your going to get mugged?



> Yes, I'd feel 10 times more safe having the GAs patrol my neighborhood, rather than a bunch of Zimmermans! LOL!  I mean really, you can't even begin to compare the 2.


Actually Id rather have a bunch of neighbors that actually care about their own neighborhoods then  the GA who are a bunch of Wanna Be Cops.  They do alot more then report and observe from their own website they claim during the past 33 years and The Guardian Angels were in the trenches, *not as mere witnesses, but active modifiers of history*.






> Yup, its definately a cluster.  And whats worse, is no matter the outcome, it'll still be a disaster.  Zimmerman gets off..holy ****, there will be riots in the street.  It'll be akin to Rodney King.  Zimmerman gets sent up the river....yeah, there'll be riots.  A no win situation all around, and the circus will be led by a bunch of idiot ringleaders, who think that rioting will somehow solve the problem.



I agree with that its a no win situation.  I blame the Media for all lies they have put out as facts.  ALL the Fancy editing to make better stories like "He's suspicious and black" instead of the truth with the dispatcher asking him what race the person was and Zimmerman answering him, the suggestive messages like "coons" instead of "cold".  Playing clips of a "witness" that didnt "witness" anything but sure found time to talk about it to the news.

At this point I have no idea whos telling the truth and prob never will.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> I disagree with what Zimmerman is claiming.  He engaged the minute he decided to follow Martin.  I'm wondering too, what Martin was doing that was suspicious?  Has the ever been determined?  Wasnt he visiting friends in the area?  And I'm also questioning whether Martin actually attacked him.  Seems like theres doubt as to whether or not his head was actually injured.



I disagree with your reasoning about 'engagement' from a legal perspective.  The law cares about the actual assault and the reasonableness of Zimmerman's actions at that time, not what led up to it.  If it were true, any citizen who follows a DUI driver while calling 911 to give the police a description would be guilty if the suspected DUI driver pulled over, got out, and shot them.

As to what Zimmerman thought Martin was doing that was 'suspicious', I believe that was covered in the transcript of the 911 call.  Zimmerman said Martin was 'acting strange' by wandering around the neighborhood in the rain with his hands his pockets, looking at various houses.

Martin was on his way back to his father's house from a nearby convenience store.  It was raining, he was wearing a hoodie, he had a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea, and he was on the phone with his girlfriend.

You can certainly question whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman; but as I've said previously, we have no evidence of any kind (that I'm aware of) that Zimmerman's statement to police isn't true.

With regard to the injuries allegedly suffered by Zimmerman, that's gone back and forth.  The latest is that CNN and other major news outlets have stated that enhanced video of Zimmerman's entrance to the police station does show what appears to be bumps or injury to the back of his head, and a police officer appears to reach up, wipe his head, and then wipe his own hand on his pants leg, indicating he had wiped something on Zimmerman's head with his hand.  Martin's family have stopped claiming that the video shows 'no injuries', so apparently that argument is a non-issue now.

I understand people having strong feelings about this case.  I understand people having opinions.  I have no idea how it is that people are coming to conclusions about what happened when nobody but Zimmerman know what really happened.  There just isn't any information to prove anything one way or another about Zimmerman's story.


----------



## shesulsa

I have to wonder, with all the defending of Zimmerman's actions, why the hell we as martial artists even worry about self-defense law at all. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks

shesulsa said:


> I have to wonder, with all the defending of Zimmerman's actions, why the hell we as martial artists even worry about self-defense law at all.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk



I do not understand what you're saying.


----------



## Wo Fat

Bill Mattocks said:


> Just for the record, I don't know what a race denier is.
> 
> And I've never defended Zimmerman.
> 
> And I don't know what his actions were, other than those that are not disputed.  If they were what he said they were, then I defend his actions as I would anyone in the same situation.  If not, then no.  But I don't know if he's lying or not.  Neither do you.
> 
> In any case, I've never said Zimmerman was innocent.  I said that it would be very difficult for the state to prove a criminal case.  Being found "Not Guilty" is not the same thing as "Innocent."  Not being prosecuted for lack of evidence also does not mean "Innocent."  Nor does it mean "Guilty."  It means what it says.



Race deniers isn't necessarily a coined phrase, and it doesn't necessarily apply to you per se.  Rather a consistent percentage of people who deny the existence of race so that they don't have to acknowledge the potential innocence of those affected by it.  For the record, I don't know that George Zimmerman is a racial bigot.  I only know that he _said_ something racially bigoted.  A lot of otherwise ordinary and decent people fall into that category.  

I said what I said because Zimmerman's current actions appear consistent with prior behavior (excessive 911 calls often for minor and trivial reasons, an arrest for resistance (predicated on who-knows-what), pursuing Trayvon Martin when asked not to do so, etc.)

The reason that so many presume that a criminal case would not yield a guilty verdict is because of the evidence that _should_ exist, but conveniently doesn't--thanks to the Sanford PD.  Had this notorious life-or-death struggle actually happened the way Zimmerman claimed, there should be evidence of it.  Think photographs; EMT notes; medical records.  But all we have are inconsistent police reports prepared 17 hours after police arrived on scene.  Now, if the Sanford PD had evidence to support (a) Zimmerman's claim of life-or-death injuries; and (b) the reports themselves, then a reasonable person would expect that they would have made such evidence public long, long ago.  They didn't; they won't; they can't.  And all of the glaring and gaping holes in their work are about to be exposed.

And based upon his lawyers withdrawing, and phone calls to the Prosecutor and to Sean Hannity of all people, no one is more desperately aware that reality is closing in ... than George Zimmerman.


----------



## ballen0351

Bill Mattocks said:


> FYI, a citizen can do the same thing.  A security guard's detention is essentially citizen's arrest in that he has the same authority as any citizen; no more, no less.



Interesting little factoid North Carolina is the only state that does not allow citizen arrests.
United States

All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. *Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authoritie or the legal protections of the police, and are strictly liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.[*6] In the United States, the police do not have to determine the legality of the citizens arrest and this practice has been greatly criticized

Oh and for you Mass folks:
Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Wo Fat said:


> Race deniers isn't necessarily a coined phrase, and it doesn't necessarily apply to you per se.  Rather a consistent percentage of people who deny the existence of race so that they don't have to acknowledge the potential innocence of those affected by it.  For the record, I don't know that George Zimmerman is a racial bigot.  I only know that he _said_ something racially bigoted.  A lot of otherwise ordinary and decent people fall into that category.



Actually, it appears that is not the case.  What you 'know' may not be factual.



> I said what I said because Zimmerman's current actions appear consistent with prior behavior (excessive 911 calls often for minor and trivial reasons, an arrest for resistance (predicated on who-knows-what), pursuing Trayvon Martin when asked not to do so, etc.)



You're spinning it the way you want to spin it, of course.  Excessive 911 calls?  How many are excessive for the neighborhood watch guy in a neighborhood that has had numerous recent burglaries?

Previous arrest for resistance; charges dropped.  Why?  I think it's hard to draw conclusions unless you know the facts.  For what it's worth, as a former LE, I can tell you that 'resisting' is a common add-on for people who do as little as argue when being arrested for an FTA warrant, etc.  It can be something or nothing.  When it's nothing, it's not unusual for it to be dropped later.

And again, he wasn't asked not to pursue Martin.  And even if he was asked not to, he doesn't have to.  Race as the reason he'd disobey the dispatcher's request?  I don't see how you make that leap.



> The reason that so many presume that a criminal case would not yield a guilty verdict is because of the evidence that _should_ exist, but conveniently doesn't--thanks to the Sanford PD.



Wow. You really have it bad for Zimmerman, don't you?



> Had this notorious life-or-death struggle actually happened the way Zimmerman claimed, there should be evidence of it.  Think photographs; EMT notes; medical records.



How do you know that doesn't exist?  The police have stated they have not released all their information to the public, but to the prosecutor.  This would be consistent with a criminal investigation.  We don't know what we don't know.



> But all we have are inconsistent police reports prepared 17 hours after police arrived on scene.  Now, if the Sanford PD had evidence to support (a) Zimmerman's claim of life-or-death injuries; and (b) the reports themselves, then a reasonable person would expect that they would have made such evidence public long, long ago.  They didn't; they won't; they can't.  And all of the glaring and gaping holes in their work are about to be exposed.



Agenda.  I don't even know how to respond to such a clearly unbalanced statement.  There's not a fact in it that I can discern.



> And based upon his lawyers withdrawing, and phone calls to the Prosecutor and to Sean Hannity of all people, no one is more desperately aware that reality is closing in ... than George Zimmerman.



The attorneys stated they were withdrawing because Zimmerman refused to meet with them and failed to take their advice, as well as having called the DA without their knowledge or representation.  I don't blame them for withdrawing.  As to his bizarre behavior; again, not sure where you're getting 'race' out of that.

I think you see what you want to see.  You've ignored repeated corrections to your incorrect assertions, I can only assume because it doesn't fit your worldview.  If you want to believe Zimmerman is a racist, fine with me.  He might be; I only say there is no evidence for that; there even appears to be character witness statements that he's the opposite of a racist.

For you, this appears to be about race and nothing else.  I'm sorry for you, I really am.  Even if Zimmerman's actions were predicated on race hatred, there's no way to know that, and precious little real basis to even suspect it.  I don't know how we can continue to have a rational discussion about this.


----------



## jks9199

ballen0351 said:


> So if they resist do you charge the shopplifter with resisting arrest?  Do they have any training to detain people?  Sounds like a bad time waiting to happen having seen the caliber of some loss prevention employees Ive delt with.



Most retailers have policies that limit the use of force to achieve a detention, mostly due to liability.  They give very little training, for the most part, whether it's a store detective or a licensed security guard.  They're essentially making a citizen's arrest, and the codes on resisting arrest in Virginia specify a "law enforcement officer." 

Regarding Neighborhood Watch...  In my area, most PDs don't maintain a list of members.  Set up the Watch, register it with the PD, and document enough patrols, and we'll post the sign.  Stop doing the patrols, and the signs come down.  (If anyone's paying attention.  We've got a road to nowhere with a Neighborhood Watch...  I guess it's made up of squirrels.)  So, generally, the PD couldn't tell you who is or isn't a member.

With regard to this whole incident...  Who knows, at this point?  I suspect that there'll be charges made soon; whether it'll be manslaughter, murder, or something else, I couldn't say or guess.  Meanwhile, various groups pushing their own agendas without regard to the facts (One might have thought that President Obama would have learned his lesson about jumping in on things before he knows what's up... I don't think a sit down over beer will be enough this time.) have turned the area into a powder keg.  I won't be at all surprised to see incidents and riots and worse springing up there soon.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Race deniers isn't necessarily a coined phrase, and it doesn't necessarily apply to you per se.  Rather a consistent percentage of people who deny the existence of race so that they don't have to acknowledge the potential innocence of those affected by it.  For the record, I don't know that George Zimmerman is a racial bigot.  I only know that he _said_ something racially bigoted.  A lot of otherwise ordinary and decent people fall into that category.


So its the opposite of a Race baiter that make up racial problems where there are none. 



> I said what I said because Zimmerman's current actions appear consistent with prior behavior (excessive 911 calls often for minor and trivial reasons,


So do 1000's of old ladies and other neighborhood watch people looking out their windows everyday 





> an arrest for resistance (predicated on who-knows-what)


,
Correct we have no idea the situation behind that arrest.  I arrested a guy for throwing a bottle at the Westboro baptist church peopel that were protesting his 2 nephews funerial.  I didnt want to and I hated it but it was my job and I had to and he has an assault charge on his record.    


> pursuing Trayvon Martin when asked not to do so, etc.)


Was he?  or was he walking back to his truck like he says?  Do you know?




> The reason that so many presume that a criminal case would not yield a guilty verdict is because of the evidence that _should_ exist, but conveniently doesn't--thanks to the Sanford PD.


Proof?  You have none other then what the news has told you which so far has not been very accurate to say the least.


> Had this notorious life-or-death struggle actually happened the way Zimmerman claimed, there should be evidence of it.  Think photographs; EMT notes; medical records.


So every struggle needs to show evidence?  I knocked myself out cold running around a house and ran into a window A/C unit quite embarrassing and am still getting joked about it at work even when it happened over 7 years ago but I had no marks other then a little bit of redness on my forehead.  But there I was out cold laying on the ground.  



> But all we have are inconsistent police reports prepared 17 hours after police arrived on scene.


Why does that matter.  Im sure the officer was on scene for a LONG time and then wrote the report the next day it happens all the time.  The facts dont change just because I wait until the next day to write a report.


> Now, if the Sanford PD had evidence to support (a) Zimmerman's claim of life-or-death injuries; and (b) the reports themselves, then a reasonable person would expect that they would have made such evidence public long, long ago.


Why would they release information on a current and active case?  Why would they release information if nobody was charged with a crime?  


> They didn't; they won't; they can't.  And all of the glaring and gaping holes in their work are about to be exposed.


How do you know?  have you seen the case file?  Have you read the reports?  Have you seen the evidence?  OR are you just going off what NBC told you?



> And based upon his lawyers withdrawing, and phone calls to the Prosecutor and to Sean Hannity of all people, no one is more desperately aware that reality is closing in ... than George Zimmerman.


It may be and once the FACTS are known if he needs to be charged then he will.  If he did anything wrong then he should spend a long time in jail. BUT we dont have any facts yet they only person that does is the special prosecutor and in the next few days we will find out what charges she thinks fit or if any at all.


----------



## jks9199

Bill Mattocks said:


> FYI, a citizen can do the same thing.  A security guard's detention is essentially citizen's arrest in that he has the same authority as any citizen; no more, no less.



Citizen's arrest laws vary greatly state to state, and I would generally discourage trying to rely on them unless you know what you're doing.  For example, in Virginia, citizen's arrest is limited to felonies and misdemeanor breach of the peace.


----------



## ballen0351

jks9199 said:


> Citizen's arrest laws vary greatly state to state, and I would generally discourage trying to rely on them unless you know what you're doing.  For example, in Virginia, citizen's arrest is limited to felonies and misdemeanor breach of the peace.



Same in Maryland


----------



## Bill Mattocks

jks9199 said:


> Citizen's arrest laws vary greatly state to state, and I would generally discourage trying to rely on them unless you know what you're doing.  For example, in Virginia, citizen's arrest is limited to felonies and misdemeanor breach of the peace.



Agreed.  My point was that the average citizen has the same powers (or lack of same) as a private security guard, neighborhood watch member, or Guardian Angel, etc.  And in practical terms, when a citizen runs down and tackles a purse-snatcher, no one but the purse-snatcher claims he exceeded his authority because he's not a cop.  I agree with other statements made in this thread that civilians are not shielded from lawsuit, nor protected by insurance in most cases where they take the law into their own hands.  Good Samaritans proceed at their own risk.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

More craziness...

http://wtvr.com/2012/04/11/prosecutor-to-make-announcement-soon-in-trayvon-martin-case/



> Legal experts called the public resignation of Zimmermans attorneys stunning.
> 
> Oh, my God. This is just a train wreck of proportions I dont even know where to begin, said Mark Geragos, a prominent defense attorney Who are you to be diagnosing your clients mental state when you havent talked to him? This is inexplicable. I felt like I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit. I dont like to second-guess other lawyers in the eye of the storm. But this is frankly one of the most outrageous things Ive witnessed.
> 
> Jose Baez, a defense attorney in the high-profile Casey Anthony case, agreed and said Zimmermans attorneys could have violated attorney-client privilege provisions.
> 
> Its unbelievable youd get on television and talk about your clients mental state, said Baez. The things you learn in the process of representing the client is confidential. Any conversation they had or nonconversations they had with George Zimmerman are completely protected. And the holder of this privilege is George Zimmerman, not the attorneys.
> 
> Sunny Hostin, a former prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst, said Zimmermans lawyers statements could hurt his case.
> 
> Ive never seen anything like this, said Hostin. As a prosecutor youre looking at a case, and now Im worried. Is George Zimmerman a flight risk? Can I get to him if I have to issue an arrest warrant? Maybe now Im going to bring charges a little more quickly. And so this really harms George Zimmerman in the eyes of a prosecutor.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Engaged how?  because he was following a strange person in his neighborhood?  Happens 1000's of times a day all over the country.  At least he takes pride in his neighborhood and wants to keep it safe.



Engaged how?  He put himself into a situation he didn't have to be put in.  For example...I could be driving down the road, on my way home, and see 2 people physically fighting on the side of the road.  I have options:  1) I could turn a blind eye, mind my own business and keep on driving.  I dont know them, so really, if they wanna kill each other, go right ahead.  2) I could call the police and report what is happening.  I could give a play by play to the dispatcher.  3) I could pull over, jump out of my vehicle and try to break up the fight.

Option 1 is obviously the no brainer.  Its the safe bet.  #2 and #3 I'm involving myself, obviously more in one than the other.  So thats what I mean.  He (Zimmerman) saw something and felt the need to act on it.


[quote  I'm wondering too, what Martin was doing that was suspicious?  Has the ever been determined? [/quote]



> Strange person in the neighborhood.  Suspicious to you or I not so much but to others yes.  I live in a rual area and know most of the people from here.  If I see someone that does not look familiar Id take notice.  we have a bunch of day time burglaries here right now and I am home during the day so I may even follow and call in on someone around here if I dont know them.



When I was working at night, I was probably one of a handful of people in my condo complex that was home during the day.  Out quite often with my dog, I'd see alot of 'strange' vehicles, yet I didn't follow them or call the cops.  




> Family I believe lived in the area if I remember.



So I wonder...if Martin had family in the area, was that night the first time he went to visit?  I mean really, come on now.  




> Well according to the witness that saw it and Zimmerman's story he was.  BUT thats just what the news has reported so far and we know how great the reporting has been so far on this case.



Again, as I asked before...did the witness see the entire thing or parts of it?  As I said, its like coming in at the 1hr mark of a 2hr movie.  You can't know exactly what happened.  How about all the clowns that use their cell phone cams to tape incidents with the police?  Odd how you only get PART of the story, usually the part where the cop is made to look like the bad guy.  Funny how the part where the suspect is acting like an *******, somehow never appears on the cam.  Hmmm.....








> Sure do they are pretty easy to spot



Exactly, vs. someone wearing average clothing.




> So every time you walk down the street and someone is behind you in every day clothes walking the same way you feel like your going to get mugged?



Dont put words in my mouth!  You know damn well what I'm saying!  What time of day did this incident happen?  If you were walking alone, and suddenly you saw someone coming up behind you, you're telling me you wouldn't be more alert?  No, I dont think that I'm going to be mugged.  I'm not a hermit..lol.  However, I dont have my head up my *** either, like some other people I see walking around.  




> Actually Id rather have a bunch of neighbors that actually care about their own neighborhoods then  the GA who are a bunch of Wanna Be Cops.  They do alot more then report and observe from their own website they claim during the past 33 years and The Guardian Angels were in the trenches, *not as mere witnesses, but active modifiers of history*.



A neighbor that sees something out of the ordinary, is a good witness, sees the incident from start to finish...sure.  A neighbor thats going to be like a Zimmerman...no thanks.  I do wonder though....lets replace Zimmerman with 3 GAs who're on patrol.  I wonder...would the outcome be different?








> I agree with that its a no win situation.  I blame the Media for all lies they have put out as facts.  ALL the Fancy editing to make better stories like "He's suspicious and black" instead of the truth with the dispatcher asking him what race the person was and Zimmerman answering him, the suggestive messages like "coons" instead of "cold".  Playing clips of a "witness" that didnt "witness" anything but sure found time to talk about it to the news.
> 
> At this point I have no idea whos telling the truth and prob never will.



And this I agree with!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> So I wonder...if Martin had family in the area, was that night the first time he went to visit?  I mean really, come on now.



Have you actually been reading anything about the case at all?  It seems like you're not up on the details.  He lived elsewhere, was suspended from school, and during his suspension, his mom sent him to live with his dad.  So apparently, he was a newcomer to the neighborhood, although his father had lived there.



> Again, as I asked before...did the witness see the entire thing or parts of it?  As I said, its like coming in at the 1hr mark of a 2hr movie.  You can't know exactly what happened.  How about all the clowns that use their cell phone cams to tape incidents with the police?  Odd how you only get PART of the story, usually the part where the cop is made to look like the bad guy.  Funny how the part where the suspect is acting like an *******, somehow never appears on the cam.  Hmmm.....



The police and prosecuting attorneys can only act one what they can prove.  If they can't prove that Martin didn't start the fight, then it doesn't much matter in terms of criminal charges.  I honestly don't even see the dots you appear to be wanting to connect.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> Have you actually been reading anything about the case at all?  It seems like you're not up on the details.  He lived elsewhere, was suspended from school, and during his suspension, his mom sent him to live with his dad.  So apparently, he was a newcomer to the neighborhood, although his father had lived there.



Probably havent been reading up on it as much as I should I suppose.  Then again, with new stories popping up every minute, you need a break now and then..lol.  Anyways, thanks for the clarification. 





> The police and prosecuting attorneys can only act one what they can prove.  If they can't prove that Martin didn't start the fight, then it doesn't much matter in terms of criminal charges.  I honestly don't even see the dots you appear to be wanting to connect.



Yes, I understand that Bill.  My point is that some people here, seem to be using 'witness' accounts as gospel.  I'm simply saying that we all know that witness testimony, much like the media, is often highly distorted.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> Probably havent been reading up on it as much as I should I suppose.  Then again, with new stories popping up every minute, you need a break now and then..lol.  Anyways, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Yes, I understand that Bill.  My point is that some people here, seem to be using 'witness' accounts as gospel.  I'm simply saying that we all know that witness testimony, much like the media, is often highly distorted.



Fair enough.  But we seem to be getting a lot of that on both sides of the issue.  People seem to be able to read minds, the way they claim to know the motivation of Zimmerman.  Nobody knows anything except Zimmerman about what happened in the moments before he pulled the trigger, to the best of my knowledge.  The rest is just supposition, and people are getting all crazy behind theories that there is zero proof for.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair enough.  But we seem to be getting a lot of that on both sides of the issue.  People seem to be able to read minds, the way they claim to know the motivation of Zimmerman.  Nobody knows anything except Zimmerman about what happened in the moments before he pulled the trigger, to the best of my knowledge.  The rest is just supposition, and people are getting all crazy behind theories that there is zero proof for.



Yup, just like I said in a post on pg. 22.  You can't ask Martin, Zimmerman will give you his version, you can't rely 100% on a witness, so correct...the only person the system can rely on, is Zimmerman.


----------



## Wo Fat

shesulsa said:


> I have to wonder, with all the defending of Zimmerman's actions, why the hell we as martial artists even worry about self-defense law at all.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk



Which begs the question:  what kind of martial artist (including instructors of martial arts) would defend, condone, justify or minimize the actions of someone who voluntarily places himself in harm's way, only to have to defend him or herself?

That's a pi$$ poor example of a martial artist.  

"_We don't need you to do that_..."


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree with your reasoning about 'engagement' from a legal perspective.  The law cares about the actual assault and the reasonableness of Zimmerman's actions at that time, not what led up to it.  If it were true, any citizen who follows a DUI driver while calling 911 to give the police a description would be guilty if the suspected DUI driver pulled over, got out, and shot them.



Perhaps I'm not following you here and forgive me if thats the case.  IMO, everything should come into play.  Using your scenario, what if, in an attempt to get away from the person following them, the DUI driver crashed.  It could be said that if the person wasn't following, they wouldn't have crashed.  I'm sure the same thing has been said about police pursuits.  You know, when the dead mans family says, "Well, if the cops weren't chasing him....."  



> As to what Zimmerman thought Martin was doing that was 'suspicious', I believe that was covered in the transcript of the 911 call.  Zimmerman said Martin was 'acting strange' by wandering around the neighborhood in the rain with his hands his pockets, looking at various houses.



And this is akin to walking/standing while black.  I love the calls that I take, where the caller complains about 3 black guys standing on the corner.  What are they doing?  Well, nothing, they're just standing there, but they look suspicious.  Sure, they could be drug dealers, they could be just a bunch of guys hanging around.  



> Martin was on his way back to his father's house from a nearby convenience store.  It was raining, he was wearing a hoodie, he had a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea, and he was on the phone with his girlfriend.



And this sparked Zimmerman to do something?  Perhaps, if he (Martin) was in fact new to the neighborhood, he may've seemed out of place.  Then again, I've seen vehicles driving around my complex that I've never seen before.  I certainly dont call the cops.



> You can certainly question whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman; but as I've said previously, we have no evidence of any kind (that I'm aware of) that Zimmerman's statement to police isn't true.



Correct.  Until we know for sure, I'll take his statement with a grain of salt.



> With regard to the injuries allegedly suffered by Zimmerman, that's gone back and forth.  The latest is that CNN and other major news outlets have stated that enhanced video of Zimmerman's entrance to the police station does show what appears to be bumps or injury to the back of his head, and a police officer appears to reach up, wipe his head, and then wipe his own hand on his pants leg, indicating he had wiped something on Zimmerman's head with his hand.  Martin's family have stopped claiming that the video shows 'no injuries', so apparently that argument is a non-issue now.



Ok.



> I understand people having strong feelings about this case.  I understand people having opinions.  I have no idea how it is that people are coming to conclusions about what happened when nobody but Zimmerman know what really happened.  There just isn't any information to prove anything one way or another about Zimmerman's story.



Yup.


----------



## billc

Here is a nice summary of how what we think we initially knew was actually all wrong...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-i-called-george-zimmerman-a-murderer-and-why-i-was-wrong/




> *Why I Called George Zimmerman a Murderer, and Why I Was Wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On March 17, I thought I had it all figured out. I wrote a post on my blog in which I pronounced America&#8217;s most famous neighborhood watch captain guilty:
Click to expand...






> How naive that post now seems. The narrative created by the media at  that time was one of an innocent life taken for no reason at all, by a  much older, heavier, and racist man itching for a confrontation.
> 
> That was before we found out there was only one gunshot and no _coup de grâce_.  That was before we found out that George Zimmerman had not deluged the  local police with 46 paranoid 911 calls in one year, but 46 calls over a  period of eight years,  which isn&#8217;t unreasonable for a community watch volunteer. The media had  either lied about how often he called, or purposefully compressed the  timeline.
> That was before we learned that Zimmerman didn&#8217;t know Martin&#8217;s race  when he made the call, and that race didn&#8217;t play a roll in any of the  911 calls the local police had on file.
> That was before we discovered that George Zimmerman wasn&#8217;t the  240-plus pound bruiser in the five-year-old picture the media used as  much as possible, but was listed at a much smaller 170 pounds by none  other than the _New York Times. _That&#8217;s a nominal 20 pounds heavier than a teen that stood four inches over him.
> That was before we found out that _two_ eyewitnesses placed  Martin on top of Zimmerman as the aggressor, and that at least one of  them claims it was Zimmerman crying for help.
> That was before ABC News attempted to claim police surveillance video  disproved Zimmerman&#8217;s claim of being injured in what may have been a purposeful deception. The very same news organization was forced to later admit the presence of _two_ lacerations  on the back of George Zimmerman&#8217;s skull consistent with his claim of  self-defense. In the end, details of the beating Zimmerman suffered at  Trayvon Martin&#8217;s hands were only given a brief mention in the local news.
> That was before NBC News was forced to fire a senior producer for selectively editing audio of Zimmerman&#8217;s 911 call in a deliberate effort to make him sound racist.
> And of course, almost no one knows that on the night he took Trayvon  Martin&#8217;s life, George Zimmerman willingly consented to take a voice  stress analyzer test, a kind of lie detector test used by the Sanford  police. He passed it.
> The narrative has changed in the wake of new details, eyewitnesses,  and embarrassing retreats. The actual story may in fact have been a  textbook example of the proper use of deadly force.



Has anyone else heard about this...


> And of course, almost no one knows that on the night he  took Trayvon  Martin&#8217;s life, George Zimmerman willingly consented to  take a voice  stress analyzer test, a kind of lie detector test used by  the Sanford  police. He passed it.


----------



## Wo Fat

> _The law cares about the actual assault and the reasonableness of Zimmerman's actions at that time, not what led up to it. If it were true, any citizen who follows a DUI driver while calling 911 to give the police a description would be guilty if the suspected DUI driver pulled over, got out, and shot them._



The danger about a deaf, dumb and blind adherence to the law is sometimes an affront to public goodwill--not to mention, self-serving.  There was once a time when I couldn't vote or be married to my wife.  Why?  Because "the law" said so.  Good and decent people saw these laws for what they were; spoke loudly against them; and the very men who created "the law" were forced stand down while good people went about the work of changing them.  It should go without saying that most laws do not fall into that category, but in this case it's a necessary reminder that such laws still get passed from time to time.

That said, a responsible law would have cared about Zimmerman's actions before he supposedly/allegedly found himself in life-or-death danger and subsequently killed an unarmed kid (yes, a 17 year old is still a kid, people's ignorant fears notwithstanding).  



> _I understand people having strong feelings about this case. I understand people having opinions. I have no idea how it is that people are coming to conclusions about what happened when nobody but Zimmerman know what really happened. There just isn't any information to prove anything one way or another about Zimmerman's story._



And if that's the standard, then Zimmerman's days are numbered.  American prisons are chock full of guys who pulled the trigger, and who just happened to be the only guy who can "explain" why he did it.    These kinds of guys are arrested, tried, convicted and locked up based--in many cases--on nothing but circumstantial evidence.  Ironically, the people who are just fine with that system of justice, would be up in arms if the George Zimmermans of society were adjudicated in the same way.

With all that said, I have changed my mind and now have a bad feeling that Zimmerman will walk (on the criminal charges).  While there is a Special Prosecutor, I don't have enough faith that she can be "special" enough to take on SYG.  These kinds of (pernicious and wreckless) laws have always required men and women of a certain courage to fight them in the courts.  By no means do I agree that Zimmerman's actions were appropriate; quite the contrary.  I think that he was every bit as pernicious and wreckless as the law.  I just don't see this particular lady going into a Southern court and fighting this kind of law.


----------



## Wo Fat

Has anyone else heard about this...
_
And of course, almost no one knows that on the night he took Trayvon Martin&#8217;s life, George Zimmerman willingly consented to take a voice stress analyzer test, a kind of lie detector test used by the Sanford police. He passed it.
_

In all honesty ... I have not.  But then, I've also heard several "experts" conclude that the voice calling for help was NOT George Zimmerman.  

It's quite possibly true that Zimmerman passed the voice stress thingamajigger.  It's also quite possibly true that the voice calling for help was Trayvon Martin.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> With all that said, I have changed my mind and now have a bad feeling that Zimmerman will walk (on the criminal charges).  While there is a Special Prosecutor, I don't have enough faith that she can be "special" enough to take on SYG.  These kinds of (pernicious and wreckless) laws have always required men and women of a certain courage to fight them in the courts.  By no means do I agree that Zimmerman's actions were appropriate; quite the contrary.  I think that he was every bit as pernicious and wreckless as the law.  I just don't see this particular lady going into a Southern court and fighting this kind of law.



By some chance, are you privy to more information about this than the rest of us?  I know I am most certainly not.  I have not come down on either side, only against a rush to judgment -- either of Zimmerman's innocence or guilt.  I don't know exactly what happened.  If he is charged, Zimmerman can assert the affirmative defense of justification, citing the Stand Your Ground law.  When the wrongful death civil trial commences, he can try to show that his actions were reasonable, and that Martin created the situation that forced Zimmerman to defend himself with lethal force.

Unfortunately, there's been plenty done by the media to cloud the events of that night.  It may be impossible to truly determine what happened, much as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, or the Simpson/Goldman murder.

Regarding Stand Your Ground laws... They're not reckless or pernicious.  They codify a Common Law practice that recognizes that running or escaping is not always possible or safe.  They are affirmative defenses, or justifications for doing something that would ordinarily be illegal.  The defendant must still show that the victim had the Opportunity, the Means, the Intent, and the Ability to cause serious bodily harm.  All it does is widen what constitutes Preclusion.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> Has anyone else heard about this...
> _
> And of course, almost no one knows that on the night he took Trayvon Martin&#8217;s life, George Zimmerman willingly consented to take a voice stress analyzer test, a kind of lie detector test used by the Sanford police. He passed it.
> _
> 
> In all honesty ... I have not.  But then, I've also heard several "experts" conclude that the voice calling for help was NOT George Zimmerman.
> 
> It's quite possibly true that Zimmerman passed the voice stress thingamajigger.  It's also quite possibly true that the voice calling for help was Trayvon Martin.



Taken at it's best light -- the Computerized Voice Stress Analysis result simply means that Zimmerman believed what he said in the interview.


----------



## Wo Fat

Moot point:  Zimmerman will be charged.  Breaking news from NBC ...


----------



## Grenadier

It was a smart move by the prosecutor.  Otherwise, attempting to bring this forth to a grand jury would have been sketchy at best, given the lack of evidence, and that what evidence exists, supports Zimmerman's story moreso than the pro-Martin crowd's.  

This gives time for the prosecutor to finish the investigation, instead of coming forth with haste.  

Charging Zimmerman is one thing.  However, unless some truly damning evidence comes to light, I strongly doubt that they'll be able to prove things beyond any kind of reasonable doubt.


----------



## shesulsa

Grenadier said:


> It was a smart move by the prosecutor.  Otherwise, attempting to bring this forth to a grand jury would have been sketchy at best, given the lack of evidence, and that what evidence exists, supports Zimmerman's story moreso than the pro-Martin crowd's.
> 
> This gives time for the prosecutor to finish the investigation, instead of coming forth with haste.
> 
> Charging Zimmerman is one thing.  However, unless some truly damning evidence comes to light, I strongly doubt that they'll be able to prove things beyond any kind of reasonable doubt.



Agreed.

I still think he was wrong to pursue and confront Martin and question his motives to start with, but I don't think anything will stick to this guy.


----------



## Wo Fat

I have to admit that I am surprised, and that my skepticism of the Special Prosecutor--at least until this point--was unwarranted.

While I agree with the previous post about scant evidence, I'm wondering if that's not a problem.  Again, prisons and jails are loaded with people convicted on scant and/or circumstantial evidence.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Moot point:  Zimmerman will be charged.  Breaking news from NBC ...



They say what he will be charged with yet?  I looked i didnt see what charges will be filed


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> They say what he will be charged with yet?  I looked i didnt see what charges will be filed



I haven't seen it mentioned yet and don't really anticipate any announcement of what they will be until it's done and he is arrested. I hope he doesn't do something stupid in the meantime.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Supposedly the charges (if any) will be revealed by the prosecutor at 6PM EDT tonight (about 30 minutes from now).

I'm not entirely certain that there will be charges filed; news sources have been known to be wrong.

However, we know that Murder in the First Degree is off the list, because apparently it takes a Grand Jury to recommend such charges in Florida.  Also, the Death Penalty is off the menu as well.

Given the list of possible charges available in Florida, if I had to guess, I'd say he'll be charged with something like Manslaughter, "Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act," which is a 2nd class felony.  If he cops a plea, he'd probably get a light prison sentence.  Of course, he and the Home Owners Association and the city of Sanford will be sued to a fare-thee-well.

I'm just guessing, though.  No idea what will happen.


----------



## granfire

2nd degree murder
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ree-murder-charge-in-trayvon-martin-case?lite


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> 2nd degree murder
> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ree-murder-charge-in-trayvon-martin-case?lite



So I see.  I also see he turned himself in and was placed under arrest.

Now, it is going to be interesting to see if those morons who think 'arrest' means 'found guilty and in prison now' will shut their stupid pie holes.  I understand 2.2 million morons signed a petition demanding his arrest.  Well, they go their wish.  Of course, he's going to get a bail hearing and if he makes bail, I wonder what they'll howl about next.  Booger-eatin' morons, the lot of 'em.

It is going to be interesting to see how this turns out.  I am curious to see what kind of evidence the state has that the media doesn't know about yet.  We'll find out, I'm sure.


----------



## Wo Fat

Bill Mattocks said:


> So I see.  I also see he turned himself in and was placed under arrest.
> 
> Now, it is going to be interesting to see if those morons who think 'arrest' means 'found guilty and in prison now' will shut their stupid pie holes.  I understand 2.2 million morons signed a petition demanding his arrest.  Well, they go their wish.  Of course, he's going to get a bail hearing and if he makes bail, I wonder what they'll howl about next.  Booger-eatin' morons, the lot of 'em.
> 
> It is going to be interesting to see how this turns out.  I am curious to see what kind of evidence the state has that the media doesn't know about yet.  We'll find out, I'm sure.



History constantly repeats itself.  Booger-eatin' morons have always had to wail and gnash and protest for something so simple as an arrest after an obvious crime was committed.  And after the arrest, there have always been those who resented it.  Whether it was Emmett Till or Amadiou Diallo or Trayvon Martin.  The unarmed dead guys were never quite innocent enough for these droolin' troglodytes.  

Well, a booger-eatin' Republican prosecutor thought better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Wo Fat said:


> History constantly repeats itself.  Booger-eatin' morons have always had to wail and gnash and protest for something so simple as an arrest after an obvious crime was committed.  And after the arrest, there have always been those who resented it.  Whether it was Emmett Till or Amadiou Diallo or Trayvon Martin.  The unarmed dead guys were never quite innocent enough for these droolin' troglodytes.
> 
> Well, a booger-eatin' Republican prosecutor thought better.



An arrest is not punishment.  The BEMs in question were holding up signs on the front page of the local newspaper saying '44 days of NO JUSTICE'.  Uh, an arrest is not 'justice'.  It's one step in the charging process.

I stand by my statements.  2.2 fricking idiots who have zero clue how our judicial system works.


----------



## Wo Fat

Bill Mattocks said:


> An arrest is not punishment.  The BEMs in question were holding up signs on the front page of the local newspaper saying '44 days of NO JUSTICE'.  Uh, an arrest is not 'justice'.  It's one step in the charging process.
> 
> I stand by my statements.  2.2 fricking idiots who have zero clue how our judicial system works.



By my lights, the one person who has "zero clue how our judicial system works", is in police custody.  Where he belongs.

To add to this newfound encouragement, the justice department is standing by to indict GZ should a judge or jury forget that it's now 2012 America, and not the 1950's South.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> To add to this newfound encouragement, the justice department is standing by to indict GZ should a judge or jury forget that it's now 2012 America, and not the 1950's South.


So your out for blood screw his right to a FAIR trial by his peers.  If hes found not guilty lets just keep trying him until hes found guilty

Silly me i thought we were after justice and if the jurys says not guilty i guess they are all racists too like the cops.


----------



## WC_lun

I'm satisfied the investigation was more thourough than it seemed on the night of the incident.  The prosecutor said in her press conference that she would not bring charges unless convinced byond a shadow of a doubt.  I wonder what filled in the missing pieces for them, evidenciary wise.

If innocent, in the long run this could be good for Zimmerman.  It would be better for him to be found innocent and have the cloud of suspicion removed.  If he's guilty then he should pay for unlawfully taking a boy's life.

I do hope that the knucklhead extremist from both sides will let the law work.  No more nonsense about threatening Zimmerman's life or rioting if a trial does not turn out to thier particular liking.

It is obvious that race is still an issue with far too many people, including both whites and minorities.  The thrust of this story should have been from the start that an unarmed teen was shot and killed.  The truth should have been found from there.  That race became an issue is reflective of how deep the wounds of racism still run in this country.


----------



## ballen0351

I wish you were right but if hes found not guilty you will have the same wack jobs claiming the jury was racist white people  that let him off.  There will be riots in the streets like when the officers were found not guilty in the ridney king trials.  I juat hope the prosecutor relly made her decision based on facts of the case and not outside pressure to file charges



WC_lun said:


> I'm satisfied the investigation was more thourough than it seemed on the night of the incident.  The prosecutor said in her press conference that she would not bring charges unless convinced byond a shadow of a doubt.  I wonder what filled in the missing pieces for them, evidenciary wise.
> 
> If innocent, in the long run this could be good for Zimmerman.  It would be better for him to be found innocent and have the cloud of suspicion removed.  If he's guilty then he should pay for unlawfully taking a boy's life.
> 
> I do hope that the knucklhead extremist from both sides will let the law work.  No more nonsense about threatening Zimmerman's life or rioting if a trial does not turn out to thier particular liking.
> 
> It is obvious that race is still an issue with far too many people, including both whites and minorities.  The thrust of this story should have been from the start that an unarmed teen was shot and killed.  The truth should have been found from there.  That race became an issue is reflective of how deep the wounds of racism still run in this country.


----------



## crushing

WC_lun said:


> I'm satisfied the investigation was more thourough than it seemed on the night of the incident. The prosecutor said in her press conference that she would not bring charges unless convinced byond a shadow of a doubt. I wonder what filled in the missing pieces for them, evidenciary wise.



Out of curiosity, what specific additional information from the investigation gives you this satisfaction?

As a progressive, I am very concerned that the charges are being brought more because of public and political pressure than because of any additional information from the investigation.  I certainly hope justice will be served, whatever the result.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Wo Fat said:


> By my lights, the one person who has "zero clue how our judicial system works", is in police custody.  Where he belongs.
> 
> To add to this newfound encouragement, the justice department is standing by to indict GZ should a judge or jury forget that it's now 2012 America, and not the 1950's South.



Seriously, I am not discussing this with you anymore.  Your agenda is disgusting to me.  You have no interest in facts or justice; you have an interest in Zimmerman being a racist murderer and will do an say anything to support your warped belief.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

WC_lun said:


> I'm satisfied the investigation was more thourough than it seemed on the night of the incident.  The prosecutor said in her press conference that she would not bring charges unless convinced byond a shadow of a doubt.  I wonder what filled in the missing pieces for them, evidenciary wise.
> 
> If innocent, in the long run this could be good for Zimmerman.  It would be better for him to be found innocent and have the cloud of suspicion removed.  If he's guilty then he should pay for unlawfully taking a boy's life.
> 
> I do hope that the knucklhead extremist from both sides will let the law work.  No more nonsense about threatening Zimmerman's life or rioting if a trial does not turn out to thier particular liking.
> 
> It is obvious that race is still an issue with far too many people, including both whites and minorities.  The thrust of this story should have been from the start that an unarmed teen was shot and killed.  The truth should have been found from there.  That race became an issue is reflective of how deep the wounds of racism still run in this country.



I agree, but remember he won't be 'found innocent'.  Being found 'not guilty' is not a finding of factual innocence, it merely means there was not enough evidence to convict.  If you think back to the OJ trial, whether he was in fact guilty or innocent was irrelevant in most people's opinions.  He was found not guilty, but many people still believe him to be guilty - and he may have been.

So sadly, I doubt that a finding of 'not guilty' or a preliminary finding of 'self-defense' (another option, I am led to believe) will not change people's minds about his actual guilt or innocence.  If he is found not guilty, he will still have to go into hiding for the rest of his life.  Unlike OJ, he will not have the money to hire bodyguards and live in a secured mansion; he'll be hunted down and killed by those seeking 'justice' at any cost.


----------



## ballen0351

Hes already innocent he must be found guilty.  In this country your innocent unless proven other wise.


----------



## MJS

It will be interesting to see how the rest of this plays out.  Hopefully we won't have all the clowns running around, rioting, acting like a bunch of *******s.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ballen0351 said:


> Hes already innocent he must be found guilty.  In this country your innocent unless proven other wise.



He is 'presumed innocent' in the eyes of the law.  That does not mean he is 'actually innocent'.  And a criminal case does not render a verdict of 'innocent'.  It renders a verdict of 'guilty' (he did it) or 'not guilty' (the state did not prove he did it).  Not guilty as a legal verdict does not equal 'innocent'.  They're not the same thing at all.

A person who robs a bank is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law.  But they actually did rob the bank, let's say.  The state is unable to mount a convincing case, and the jury finds the accused bank robber 'not guilty'.  Does that mean he is innocent?  No, he still robbed the bank in real life.  In fact, he can stand up and say "I robbed that bank, you idiots" and there is nothing the criminal courts can do to him; double jeopardy prevents him from being tried twice for the same offense.  Not guilty is a verdict in court; it does not mean innocent.

On the other hand, once a person is found 'guilty' of a crime, the burden of proof shifts to them; they are now presumed guilty.  They can attempt to have their case reviewed, overturned, or be given a new trial by arguing 'actual innocence' if they can convince a court to grant their petition, writ, or motion.

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

A person can be found 'actually innocent' in a criminal case, but it is very rare.  Not guilty just means the state did not make its case, not that the person didn't do it.


----------



## shesulsa

Wo Fat said:


> By my lights, the one person who has "zero clue how our judicial system works", is in police custody.  Where he belongs.
> 
> To add to this newfound encouragement, the justice department is standing by to indict GZ should a judge or jury forget that it's now 2012 America, and not the 1950's South.



While I'm sensitive to what I think you're trying to say in the first sentence, my point has always been that he DID indeed know how the legal system is supposed to work, he just went way over the top and took it upon himself to do what he was - in unofficial language - "told" not to do. (I'll expound on this farther down)

As to your second sentence, let's hope that with the diverse population of Florida there will be a fair trial.  I am sensitive to the potential race issue here. I've listened to the recording of Zimmerman's call with various levels of volume and while I don't have advanced voice analysis software, it sure does sound like he is saying "effing coons" and with the other considerations that are important (at least to me as a former security officer) and even with his outspokenness in other matters race-related, I think this guy has some issues that go far deeper than prejudice.  I also think these issues, even with race aside, are certainly concerning enough for *something* to be done with this fella.

I don't disagree that smacking someone's head on the ground repeatedly could be considered a life-threatening situation ... but I do disagree with his pursuit of Martin and this is where I want to point out something - I'm curious why others haven't done so already.

When I was training for security - and even in my martial arts training with people employed in law enforcement - it was made pretty clear that while we could not be given commands by law enforcement or LE agencies other than what they would a citizen, that we could be given *suggestions* of the *wink* *wink* variety.  An example would be exactly what happened here - the dispatcher (who cannot give a command to a citizen) would say, "We don't need for you to do that," and what we were supposed to *hear in our heads* was Do Not Follow This Person.

Does this make sense to any other Law Enforcement or security people here in this conversation?  I mean to say it's a *wink* *wink* kind of general understanding while still being a very official point that if law enforcement or dispatch says they need for you to do something, if you're comfortable, you really should comply and if they say they don't need for you to do something you really should not do it.

Thoughts on this?


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> While I'm sensitive to what I think you're trying to say in the first sentence, my point has always been that he DID indeed know how the legal system is supposed to work, he just went way over the top and took it upon himself to do what he was - in unofficial language - "told" not to do. (I'll expound on this farther down)
> 
> As to your second sentence, let's hope that with the diverse population of Florida there will be a fair trial. I am sensitive to the potential race issue here. I've listened to the recording of Zimmerman's call with various levels of volume and while I don't have advanced voice analysis software, it sure does sound like he is saying "effing coons" and with the other considerations that are important (at least to me as a former security officer) and even with his outspokenness in other matters race-related, I think this guy has some issues that go far deeper than prejudice. I also think these issues, even with race aside, are certainly concerning enough for *something* to be done with this fella.
> 
> I don't disagree that smacking someone's head on the ground repeatedly could be considered a life-threatening situation ... but I do disagree with his pursuit of Martin and this is where I want to point out something - I'm curious why others haven't done so already.
> 
> When I was training for security - and even in my martial arts training with people employed in law enforcement - it was made pretty clear that while we could not be given commands by law enforcement or LE agencies other than what they would a citizen, that we could be given *suggestions* of the *wink* *wink* variety. An example would be exactly what happened here - the dispatcher (who cannot give a command to a citizen) would say, "We don't need for you to do that," and what we were supposed to *hear in our heads* was Do Not Follow This Person.
> 
> Does this make sense to any other Law Enforcement or security people here in this conversation? I mean to say it's a *wink* *wink* kind of general understanding while still being a very official point that if law enforcement or dispatch says they need for you to do something, if you're comfortable, you really should comply and if they say they don't need for you to do something you really should not do it.
> 
> Thoughts on this?



Yup, makes sense to me.   I offer suggestions to people all the time...whether or not they take them, is out of my control.  At least its on tape that I said something.  Just like the woman who called yesterday, to say that her furnace wasn't acting right, and smoke was coming out of it.  I told her if it was safe for her to do so, why don't you wait outside and I'll send you help.  Once I hang up, I have no idea whether or not she in fact did go outside to wait for the FD, or is she stayed inside.  The problem lies in the fact that what we *hear in our head* probably won't be the same as whats *heard* by others.  Either they will not get the hint or interpret it to something else.


----------



## Wo Fat

shesulsa said:


> While I'm sensitive to what I think you're trying to say in the first sentence, my point has always been that he DID indeed know how the legal system is supposed to work, he just went way over the top and took it upon himself to do what he was - in unofficial language - "told" not to do. (I'll expound on this farther down)





> As to your second sentence, let's hope that with the diverse population of Florida there will be a fair trial.  I am sensitive to the potential race issue here. I've listened to the recording of Zimmerman's call with various levels of volume and while I don't have advanced voice analysis software, it sure does sound like he is saying "effing coons" and with the other considerations that are important (at least to me as a former security officer) and even with his outspokenness in other matters race-related, I think this guy has some issues that go far deeper than prejudice.  I also think these issues, even with race aside, are certainly concerning enough for *something* to be done with this fella.



While it's true that Florida has a diverse population, one can't forget the 1992 verdict in the Rodney King beating case nor the 1995(?) verdict in the OJ case.  Both verdicts went against the overwhelming obviousness of guilt, and both occurred in a very diverse California.  Personally, I hope that GZ gets a very diverse jury that's reflective of all of Florida.  And I will say it here again; I don't know if GZ is a racist per se.  I just know that I heard him say "fcking coons".  Now, I don't know about you, but in my lifetime, I have uttered bigoted slurs in anger or condemnation on occasion.  Most of us have, and most of us are not proud of it.  We're human.  We're fallible.  We do and say horrible things from time to time.  That said, is it possible for someone to say something racist and not *be* a racist?  Absolutely.  But if I utter a racial slur about some particular race, and then a couple minutes later, someone of that race is dead at my hand, I've lost my presumption of goodwill.  





> I don't disagree that smacking someone's head on the ground repeatedly could be considered a life-threatening situation ... but I do disagree with his pursuit of Martin and this is where I want to point out something - I'm curious why others haven't done so already.



But couldn't this be a moot point, now?  A respected prosecutor has considered all the stuff that we in the public *thought* we knew, and has charged him with the highest level of homicide possible.  We in the public are still stuck with the image of the life-or-death head-banging, but the person who offered that account is in jail and charged with murder.  That speaks volumes about his credibility and about his story.



> When I was training for security - and even in my martial arts training with people employed in law enforcement - it was made pretty clear that while we could not be given commands by law enforcement or LE agencies other than what they would a citizen, that we could be given *suggestions* of the *wink* *wink* variety.  An example would be exactly what happened here - the dispatcher (who cannot give a command to a citizen) would say, "We don't need for you to do that," and what we were supposed to *hear in our heads* was Do Not Follow This Person.



You're exactly right.  A reasonable person is going to hear the "indirect" orders to stay away.  And reasonable person is going to heed that suggestion.  Not because they "have to follow orders" but because they know that they are armed, and that they could be putting themselves or someone else into harm's way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> Yup, makes sense to me.   I offer suggestions to people all the time...whether or not they take them, is out of my control.  At least its on tape that I said something.  Just like the woman who called yesterday, to say that her furnace wasn't acting right, and smoke was coming out of it.  I told her if it was safe for her to do so, why don't you wait outside and I'll send you help.  Once I hang up, I have no idea whether or not she in fact did go outside to wait for the FD, or is she stayed inside.  The problem lies in the fact that what we *hear in our head* probably won't be the same as whats *heard* by others.  Either they will not get the hint or interpret it to something else.



I used to say "Why don't you pop that trunk lid for me?" and "You don't mine if I search your vehicle, do you?"  Most people had no idea that a) I was not giving them an order and b) they had the right to refuse my request.

Presumed authority covers a lot of ground.  As a member of the LE community, I was glad of it.  As a citizen, I wish people were more aware of what the police (or a dispatcher) can and cannot order them to do.  Not only do we act like sheep, we demand to be treated like sheep and get angry when others stop acting like sheep.  *Oh noez!  He disobeyed the dispatcher!  I'm telling! * Puhleeze.


----------



## shesulsa

Wo Fat said:


> While it's true that Florida has a diverse population, one can't forget the 1992 verdict in the Rodney King beating case nor the 1995(?) verdict in the OJ case.  Both verdicts went against the overwhelming obviousness of guilt, and both occurred in a very diverse California.  Personally, I hope that GZ gets a very diverse jury that's reflective of all of Florida.  And I will say it here again; I don't know if GZ is a racist per se.



Just as there is a white woman who clearly hid her daughter's death and possibly even killed her is walking free because the child's body was SO decomposed a cause of death could not be determined.  Evidence is everything and even if the law finds someone legally not guilty, it does not mean s/he is innocent.  Would you say the outrage from the verdict for this woman could compare to the the incidents above? I echo Bill Mattock's and MJS's concerns about rioting. I was there for the LA riots ... one of the reasons I left Kalifornia.



> I just know that I heard him say "fcking coons".  Now, I don't know about you, but in my lifetime, I have uttered bigoted slurs in anger or condemnation on occasion.  Most of us have, and most of us are not proud of it.  We're human.  We're fallible.  We do and say horrible things from time to time.  That said, is it possible for someone to say something racist and not *be* a racist?  Absolutely.  But if I utter a racial slur about some particular race, and then a couple minutes later, someone of that race is dead at my hand, I've lost my presumption of goodwill.



I have been thinking about this ever since the incident happened and have done so before ... you know, I cannot say I have never uttered a racial slur - largely when young and dumb and also in discussion with my children for educational purposes ("have you ever heard someone use the word n****r?" etc.) - but I really can't think of a time where I used such a term in a stressed or angered situation.  I've never gotten so mad at someone not white that I called them a racist word.

Anyone else?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

shesulsa said:


> I have been thinking about this ever since the incident happened and have done so before ... you know, I cannot say I have never uttered a racial slur - largely when young and dumb and also in discussion with my children for educational purposes ("have you ever heard someone use the word n****r?" etc.) - but I really can't think of a time where I used such a term in a stressed or angered situation.  I've never gotten so mad at someone not white that I called them a racist word.
> 
> Anyone else?



[video=youtube_share;YOt1wEDy0SI]http://youtu.be/YOt1wEDy0SI[/video]

CNN originally make the claim that Zimmerman said _"****ing coons."_  Now CNN says that it says, _"****ing cold."_  That's what I hear also.

I would also like to say that in my experience, 'coons' is not a common epithet anymore.  I haven't heard it in many years, but there are others which I commonly hear.  Likewise, I read a FB post recently from someone who claimed he had been approached by a black youth who referred to him as a 'honkie'.  I just have trouble believing that.  It's like 'jive cracker'.  Nobody talks like that anymore.

People who want to believe this is race-related are going to do so.  The word that Zimmerman used won't change their minds one way or another.

Is Zimmerman a racist?  I do not know.  Neither do the people who believe he is.  Rather than assume he is a racist until proven otherwise, I'll go the other way.  Show me a pattern of behavior.  Show me an incident, even one, in which Zimmerman has appeared to behave in a racist way.  One word?  No.  That's a non-starter and reveals (in my opinion) an underlying racial agenda.


----------



## granfire

I suppose you'd be surprised...a popular MMORPG changed the name of an item in game due to 'Coon' being non PC: Who would want to walk around with a Main @$&* in tow.....yes, it's a cat.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

granfire said:


> I suppose you'd be surprised...a popular MMORPG changed the name of an item in game due to 'Coon' being non PC: Who would want to walk around with a Main @$&* in tow.....yes, it's a cat.



Lots of things get changed because some PC crybaby complains.  Here in Michigan, a popular coffee brand had to change their name from 'Beaners' (for coffee beans, duh) to 'Bigby' because someone complained.  Still, I haven't heard anyone call someone a 'beaner' as a derogatory term since Cheech and Chong.  So, do you hear people call black people 'coons' a lot?  Because I don't.  And yes, I hear a lot of racial epithets in Detroit.  Racism is alive and well here.


----------



## ballen0351

Interestingly i listened to some drunk a hole call his black arresting officer a coon for about 45 min the other night along with several other more common names and a few ive never hears before.  Ive been called a cracker but never a honkie.  I think racial slurs are different by geographic area.

However i dont here coon or cold when i hear the tape from zimmerman i dont hear anything but mumbles but when they say see he said.coon then i.hear coon.  When they say see he said cold i hear cold.  Its like the ghost hunter shows qhen they claim they recorded ghosts talking.  I never hear anything until they tell me what im supposed to hear.


----------



## WC_lun

I think the racist thing is/was a ploy to stir up more interest in the case.  None of us really know if Zimmerman is racist from what little "evidence" we get from the media.  What we know is he killed a kid a claims self dedense.  The claim of self defense is where the focus should be.  I am interested to know why the state believes it was not self defense.

I do have to give props to Martin's parents.  While mourning the loss of their son they called for a deeper investigation into the killing, while at the same time calling for calm activism.  I hope people can take a que from them and resist the urge to riot, no matter what the verdict.  It does no ones cause any good to damage the property of your friends and neighbors.  Now if some of the more famous people in the media can show as much common sense and restraint.  Publicly wondering aloud why Zimmerman hasn't been shot already just proves Mike Tyson has brain damage


----------



## granfire

WC_lun said:


> I think the racist thing is/was a ploy to stir up more interest in the case.  None of us really know if Zimmerman is racist from what little "evidence" we get from the media.  What we know is he killed a kid a claims self dedense.  The claim of self defense is where the focus should be.  I am interested to know why the state believes it was not self defense.
> 
> I do have to give props to Martin's parents.  While mourning the loss of their son they called for a deeper investigation into the killing, while at the same time calling for calm activism.  I hope people can take a que from them and resist the urge to riot, no matter what the verdict.  It does no ones cause any good to damage the property of your friends and neighbors.  Now if some of the more famous people in the media can show as much common sense and restraint.  Publicly wondering aloud why Zimmerman hasn't been shot already just proves Mike Tyson has brain damage



No, not really. I am sure you can call for an indepth investigation without going on TV and demanding arrests be made.


----------



## ballen0351

or trademarking your kids name


----------



## WC_lun

granfire said:


> No, not really. I am sure you can call for an indepth investigation without going on TV and demanding arrests be made.



It is very difficult to get anything done such as an in depth police investigation without going to the media and getting others to help with your cause.  Squeeky wheel and all that.



ballen0351 said:


> or trademarking your kids name



You have a point there.  Kind a douchebaggery thing to do.


----------



## Wo Fat

> I would also like to say that in my experience, 'coons' is not a common epithet anymore. I haven't heard it in many years, but there are others which I commonly hear. Likewise, I read a FB post recently from someone who claimed he had been approached by a black youth who referred to him as a 'honkie'. I just have trouble believing that. It's like 'jive cracker'. Nobody talks like that anymore.



You may not care, but I agree.  I've not been called a coon--at least to my face--since I was a kid in the '70s.  And, LOL, you're right; honkie, etc., went out with George Jefferson.  Personally, I don't hear honkey or whitey anymore, but I won't presume that nobody ever says it.  Now, when I hear racial slurs about others--Latino, White, Asian, Native--I don't wilt.  I stand up and oppose it when safe to do so.  My wife is White and our kids are biracial.  We have zero tolerance for racism or bigotry ... from any source.

I would also agree--again--that I do not know that Zimmerman is a racist.  I only know that I heard him say "coons".  But even if some heard "goons" or "cold" or "clothes", there's no mistaking him saying "_these a$$holes ... they always get away_".  "These"--plural.  IMO, this is such an overwhelming piece of evidence that the Prosecution has alleged that Zimmerman *profiled* Trayvon Martin (that's not my word, it's in the Prosecution's averment).

Yes, the Prosecution must prove their allegation.  But it'll take some serious verbal gymnastics to convince a jury that Trayvon was not profiled.


----------



## ballen0351

So now These is a racist term.  Wow all that time when the bad guys on scobby do said i would have gotten away with it if it werent for these kids i had no idea that were racists.  Thanks for teaching me.

And everytime i tell my wife these kids are driving me nuts today i was being racist.  Because these could never had referred to something simple like these teenagers or these traspassers or these punks it MUST have ment these black people right.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> It is very difficult to get anything done such as an in depth police investigation without going to the media and getting others to help with your cause.
> .


Really?  Cause i know we do investigations everyday without the media making up lies to force us to charge people


----------



## billc

Some thoughts from Allen Dershowitz...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/...nethical-and-will-never-make-it-past-a-judge/



> Four and a half minutes of brutal criticism for prosecutor Angela Corey, whom he accuses straight-out of grandstanding for political gain. It&#8217;ll take you 30 seconds to read the entire charging instrumentbut I&#8217;ll save you 20 and post the critical bit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second-degree murder under Florida law is defined as:The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual​Dershowitz&#8217;s point: There&#8217;s nothing in the charging instrument that suggests probable cause to believe Zimmerman had a &#8220;depraved mind regardless of human life&#8221; when he shot Martin. On the contrary, he notes, the facts as stated are consistent with self-defense. (Tellingly, there&#8217;s also no reference to Zimmerman&#8217;s injuries.) The prosecution can amend the affidavit to strengthen its case if the judge throws it out, but then you&#8217;re left wondering why they didn&#8217;t submit a more detailed affidavit in the first place.



The video of Dershowitz...

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/...st_affidavit_irresponsible_and_unethical.html



> &#8220;Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won&#8217;t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,&#8221; Dershowitz said. &#8220;There&#8217;s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.&#8221; (via Mediaite)


----------



## WC_lun

ballen0351 said:


> Really?  Cause i know we do investigations everyday without the media making up lies to force us to charge people



Let me clarify then, it does take a very squeeky wheel to get an investigation going that has already stalled.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Let me clarify then, it does take a very squeeky wheel to get an investigation going that has already stalled.


Or people can just be patient and let the police and attys do their jobs.  Hard to get work done when you have people shooting up police cars and blocking the entrance to the police dept or when you have hundreds of reportera camped out at your station


----------



## Master Dan

I like what the prosecutor said today the 2nd degree murder charge is based on profiling and it is very clear on tape that his comments were in fact profiling the kid and his motives on ignoring orders to not pursue and stay in the car and pusuit with a gun was motivated by his comments they always get away with it Punk is up to no good ect. He took a gun to a skittles fight and killed a minor far worse that having regrets about past racial slurs. 

However I think no matter how much the Prosecutor likes to gloss over that no pulbic presure had anything todo with thier proceedures in this cass yeh right??? why was she in front fo the cameras again today at the arainment which she never does in routine cases??? 

Reminds me of tricky Dick saying he was not a crook??


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> So now These is a racist term.  Wow all that time when the bad guys on scobby do said i would have gotten away with it if it werent for these kids i had no idea that were racists.  Thanks for teaching me.
> 
> And everytime i tell my wife these kids are driving me nuts today i was being racist.  Because these could never had referred to something simple like these teenagers or these traspassers or these punks it MUST have ment these black people right.




No, not racist.
Prejudicial.
You know when 'they' come into play logical argument takes a second seat to preconceived stereotypes. 
Same happens when our friend billi starts in on 'them' lefties and commies...


----------



## Wo Fat

Master Dan said:


> I like what the prosecutor said today the 2nd degree murder charge is based on profiling and it is very clear on tape that his comments were in fact profiling the kid and his motives on ignoring orders to not pursue and stay in the car and pusuit with a gun was motivated by his comments they always get away with it Punk is up to no good ect. He took a gun to a skittles fight and killed a minor far worse that having regrets about past racial slurs.
> 
> However I think no matter how much the Prosecutor likes to gloss over that no pulbic presure had anything todo with thier proceedures in this cass yeh right??? why was she in front fo the cameras again today at the arainment which she never does in routine cases???
> 
> Reminds me of tricky Dick saying he was not a crook??



Agree with the first paragraph.  And yet, if there was no public pressure whatsoever, then there would have been zero actions taken beyond taking the Profiler/Shooter at his word.  There would have been zero follow-up investigations.

Without public pressure, Trayvon Martin's shooting would have been no different than a man shooting a bear in his yard.  A few perfunctory questions; sign here; have a nice day, sorry for the inconvenience. 

Mr. Martin was a human being who had every legal (and moral) right to be where he was.  He left the house and walked through the neighborhood to go to the store ... and he did so without incident or cause for suspicion.  Sound logic dictates that he was coming back into the neighborhood equally as peaceful.  He did not deserve to be shot to death.


----------



## ballen0351

The only problem I see with all this is we have a justice system set up the way it is for a reason.  Good or Bad it works how it works.  If now all we need is a few protests, a few media lies, to get what we want there is no reason for the system anymore.  Its like judge shopping.  When I was a detective and others in my unit would write Search Warrants that were kinda weak on Prob. Cause they would judge shop.  They would go from judge to judge to judge until one of them would actually sign it.  I always felt that was wrong.  The process is supposed to work by going into the court house looking for the assigned desk duty judge for that day and that who gets all the search warrants for that day.  Good or bad thats the judge you see.  To then judge shop to me breaks down the process and in my opinon weakens your case and if God forbid something happened when we served the warrant and someone got killed I feel Id be responsibile because I judge Shopped instead of going off my facts I fould a judge that just wanted to leave early to play golf so they dont even read it they just sign it as they are leaving the court house.  Same goes for the prosecutor in this case.  The local prosecutor gets the case it is his/her call.  If they decide no charges then good or bad thats they way it goes.  If now when ever the people decide we dont like that answer we want to shop around and apply so much pressuse until we get someone to come up with charges to shut people up thats bad.  Its Bad because we the people dont have the FACTS we have 2 to 3 min news stories that were often conflicting.  They site in the charging documents that Martins mother identifed the crys for help as her son but left out the part that the father said it was not his son.  Little errors like that make our justice system less about Justice and more about revenge.  It also sets a bad example for the next time which may not be so cut and dry as this one appears to be and an innocent person could be wrongfully arrested and convicted because of Mob Rule which is the type of thing our system is supposed to prevent. It may workout ok this time but what about the next time?


----------



## WC_lun

I see your point and I can't say I completely disagree with it.  I do think the justice system is run by human beings and sometimes that means things break down.  In those cases it takes people willing to be loud and create a stir to get things moving again.  This particular case did not happen in a vaccumn.  Trayvan Martin is not the first young black man to be killed using the no retreat law as justification.  In many of those previous cases there was little follow up investigation.  I don't blame that all on police, but I can see where the family feared the same thing would happen again.

Ballen, I do have to give you props for not taking the easy way on your investigations and doing the work neccesary to get a solid case.  If only more people would do the same in both thier personal lives and work the world would be a much better place.


----------



## oftheherd1

Wo Fat said:


> Agree with the first paragraph. And yet, if there was no public pressure whatsoever, then there would have been zero actions taken beyond taking the Profiler/Shooter at his word. There would have been zero follow-up investigations.
> 
> Without public pressure, Trayvon Martin's shooting would have been no different than a man shooting a bear in his yard. A few perfunctory questions; sign here; have a nice day, sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> Mr. Martin was a human being who had every legal (and moral) right to be where he was. He left the house and walked through the neighborhood to go to the store ... and he did so without incident or cause for suspicion. Sound logic dictates that he was coming back into the neighborhood equally as peaceful. He did not deserve to be shot to death.



Police are usually as human as the rest of us, and usually want to see justice done.  But there can be many reasons for an investigation stalling or no longer receiving full attention.  Since we don't know what the reason was, I for one won't criticize when I don't know what I am criticizing.

And while I agree it is sad young Mr. Martin is dead, and I don't know enough facts to say Mr. Zimmerman's actions were right or wrong, I can tell you that sound logic is not something all humans follow, and certainly not crooks.  I'm not saying Mr. Martin was a crook, but when a policeman looks at something he thinks may be suspicious, logic isn't going to be his mainstay (and no, Mr. Zimmerman wasn't a policeman, but there are some indications he may have been a wannabe).



ballen0351 said:


> The only problem I see with all this is we have a justice system set up the way it is for a reason. Good or Bad it works how it works. If now all we need is a few protests, a few media lies, to get what we want there is no reason for the system anymore. Its like judge shopping. When I was a detective and others in my unit would write Search Warrants that were kinda weak on Prob. Cause they would judge shop. They would go from judge to judge to judge until one of them would actually sign it. I always felt that was wrong. The process is supposed to work by going into the court house looking for the assigned desk duty judge for that day and that who gets all the search warrants for that day. Good or bad thats the judge you see. To then judge shop to me breaks down the process and in my opinon weakens your case and if God forbid something happened when we served the warrant and someone got killed I feel Id be responsibile because I judge Shopped instead of going off my facts I fould a judge that just wanted to leave early to play golf so they dont even read it they just sign it as they are leaving the court house. Same goes for the prosecutor in this case. The local prosecutor gets the case it is his/her call. If they decide no charges then good or bad thats they way it goes. If now when ever the people decide we dont like that answer we want to shop around and apply so much pressuse until we get someone to come up with charges to shut people up thats bad. Its Bad because we the people dont have the FACTS we have 2 to 3 min news stories that were often conflicting. They site in the charging documents that Martins mother identifed the crys for help as her son but left out the part that the father said it was not his son. Little errors like that make our justice system less about Justice and more about revenge. It also sets a bad example for the next time which may not be so cut and dry as this one appears to be and an innocent person could be wrongfully arrested and convicted because of Mob Rule which is the type of thing our system is supposed to prevent. It may workout ok this time but what about the next time?



I agree with what you say in general.  However, knowing what you said and agreeing we just need to sit back and hope isn't always a solution either.  Not in my book anyway.  If someone causes me to have to reshift focus by becoming a squeeky wheel, I may not like it, but I will try to understand from their perspective.  If the reason is something I am at liberty to tell them about, that might be all that is needed.  Then they know they and the victim aren't being forgotten or marginalized.  It's not an easy position for the effected person or the police either.  But both will have to get through it as best they can.  That is also how it works (or should in my opinion).

But I do understand what you are trying to say, and am not in total disagreement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Martin had every legal right to be where he was.  So did Zimmerman.  When the two came in contact with each other, something happened and it led to a physical struggle on the ground.  What that something was, we do not know, but we know the outcome; Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman.

Without public pressure, it is possible that the entire situation would have ended with a finding that Zimmerman defended himself legally; that is his claim, and there is little (even in the charge sheet that I can see) that contradicts that.  That does not mean he is telling the truth; it means we don't have much else in the way of information to know what really happened.

With public pressure, it is possible that charges were brought forth on Zimmerman which would not have been brought otherwise.  Now there will be a deeper level of scrutiny from the court, and the state will have to prove its case in court, presuming that Zimmerman's case is not simply dismissed by a judge in a separate self-defense hearing, as provided for under Florida law.

If he is found guilty and sent to prison, many will claim justice has been done; but we may end up knowing little or nothing more about what really happened than we do now.  Alternatively, new information may become available that the police and prosecutors know which has not yet been made public, and it may show that Zimmerman was lying.  If he has charges against him dismissed prior to trial, or if the state fails to make its case and he is found not guilty, many will claim justice was not done.

With or without public pressure, many will claim, rightly or wrongly, that the outcome is not correct; no matter what the outcome is.

I will say that in my opinion, public pressure is a double-edged sword.  It can shed light on bad situations and force corrections.  It can also force people to behave in ways they otherwise would not, to the detriment of justice.  We do not know at this time which this public pressure has wrought.  And we may not know afterwards, either.

Most who should be ashamed of themselves never will be.  If Zimmerman is found guilty and goes to prison, they will be happy; and the fact of his guilt or innocence will be utterly irrelevant.  That's how populist anger works.  The issue is not whether Zimmerman is actually guilty or innocent to them; if he is guilty of course he should to to prison.  But if he is not, the angry mob will not care; they want punishment and retribution, not justice.  They seek blood, not a fair trial.  And nothing else will satisfy them. I hope those of you to whom this applies like the taste of it.  Your lot in life is to be a tool of others, congratulations. 

If you're not sure if you're a tool, ask yourself this; if Zimmerman is tried and found not guilty, will you be satisfied with the verdict and willing to move on with your life, or will this remain a thorn in your side and proof to you that the system is racist and a murderer walked away scot-free?  If the latter, yeah, that's you.


----------



## Wo Fat

> And while I agree it is sad young Mr. Martin is dead, and I don't know enough facts to say Mr. Zimmerman's actions were right or wrong, I can tell you that sound logic is not something all humans follow, and certainly not crooks. I'm not saying Mr. Martin was a crook, but when a policeman looks at something he thinks may be suspicious, logic isn't going to be his mainstay (and no, Mr. Zimmerman wasn't a policeman, but there are some indications he may have been a wannabe).



To your point, if you don't know enough of the facts to determine Zimmerman's actions, that's OK.  The Prosecution is on the case and they've investigated the facts for you (and me, the Martin family, and the State of Florida).  And the Prosecution has determined that Zimmerman's actions were very wrong.  

I agree that police officers are human and subject to good judgment and good deeds, as well as bad judgment and bad deeds.  And if we left it up to the police to act as on-the-spot jurists, then we get closer to a police state.  So it is that our justice system has built-in checks and balances.  It's a damn shame that our society had to publicly protest and agitate for simple checks and balances, but that's American society -- for good and bad.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> To your point, if you don't know enough of the facts to determine Zimmerman's actions, that's OK.  The Prosecution is on the case and they've investigated the facts for you (and me, the Martin family, and the State of Florida).  And the Prosecution has determined that Zimmerman's actions were very wrong.
> 
> I agree that police officers are human and subject to good judgment and good deeds, as well as bad judgment and bad deeds.  And if we left it up to the police to act as on-the-spot jurists, then we get closer to a police state.  So it is that our justice system has built-in checks and balances.  It's a damn shame that our society had to publicly protest and agitate for simple checks and balances, but that's American society -- for good and bad.



The state of florida might just ahve concluded that Mr Zimmerman is best served if he is in jail, not because of guild or innocence but because of the media frenzy. 

And sadly, the martin family lit the fire on that fuse.


----------



## Wo Fat

Most of those who presume that the pursuit and outcomes of American justice is *always* neutral and blind, should be ashamed of themselves for their naivete and willful ignorance of American judicial history--especially within their own lifetime.  There are have been open and unsolved cases of murders of innocent Americans who were determined not worthy of justice.  When small segments of the public demanded justice--meaning an actual thorough, honest, and above-board investigation of bombings, murders and other violent acts--they were accused of wanting "blood".  And when the obvious killers were acquitted or not charged at all, it was the checks and balance of the federal government that did what the local governments would not do.  This kind of thing is not just history, it's precedent.  

Many Americans today could care less if certain people resent the fact that pursuers of justice won't "shut up" on demand.  Count me among those Americans.  When the killers of Emmett Till, Mickey Goodman, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, Denise McNair, Medgar Evers, among others, were acquitted and remained free for decades, many people approved with the way the system worked.   

But justice no longer needs those people's permission or approval.


----------



## granfire

What are you implying?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I'm coming to the realization that I'm tired of outrage.  I'm tired of populist anger.  I'm tired of protests and screaming and yelling and wearing hoodies and Guy Fawkes masks and demands for this and for that.  People run from one popular outrage to the next, whipped by the pandering media and I'm talking about on the left and the right.  Is there injustice in the world?  Yes.  Is there racism and bigotry?  Yes.  But it's all gone too far.  Shooting up police cars, black separatists issuing 'dead or alive' bounties, white separatists patrolling the streets with bad intent, it's time all ya'll *morons* sit down, shut up, and let justice do what it does.  Enough hate, enough threats, and definitely enough gunplay.  Not one of you knows what happened in the moments before Zimmerman pulled that trigger; and neither do I.  So all of our opinions on what occurred are worth precisely dick.


----------



## granfire

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm coming to the realization that I'm tired of outrage.  I'm tired of populist anger.  I'm tired of protests and screaming and yelling and wearing hoodies and Guy Fawkes masks and demands for this and for that.  People run from one popular outrage to the next, whipped by the pandering media and I'm talking about on the left and the right.  Is there injustice in the world?  Yes.  Is there racism and bigotry?  Yes.  But it's all gone too far.  Shooting up police cars, black separatists issuing 'dead or alive' bounties, white separatists patrolling the streets with bad intent, it's time all ya'll *morons* sit down, shut up, and let justice do what it does.  Enough hate, enough threats, and definitely enough gunplay.  Not one of you knows what happened in the moments before Zimmerman pulled that trigger; and neither do I.  So all of our opinions on what occurred are worth precisely dick.



Yes.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> Martin had every legal right to be where he was.  So did Zimmerman.  When the two came in contact with each other, something happened and it led to a physical struggle on the ground.  What that something was, we do not know, but we know the outcome; Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman.
> 
> Without public pressure, it is possible that the entire situation would have ended with a finding that Zimmerman defended himself legally; that is his claim, and there is little (even in the charge sheet that I can see) that contradicts that.  That does not mean he is telling the truth; it means we don't have much else in the way of information to know what really happened.
> 
> With public pressure, it is possible that charges were brought forth on Zimmerman which would not have been brought otherwise.  Now there will be a deeper level of scrutiny from the court, and the state will have to prove its case in court, presuming that Zimmerman's case is not simply dismissed by a judge in a separate self-defense hearing, as provided for under Florida law.
> 
> If he is found guilty and sent to prison, many will claim justice has been done; but we may end up knowing little or nothing more about what really happened than we do now.  Alternatively, new information may become available that the police and prosecutors know which has not yet been made public, and it may show that Zimmerman was lying.  If he has charges against him dismissed prior to trial, or if the state fails to make its case and he is found not guilty, many will claim justice was not done.
> 
> With or without public pressure, many will claim, rightly or wrongly, that the outcome is not correct; no matter what the outcome is.
> 
> I will say that in my opinion, public pressure is a double-edged sword.  It can shed light on bad situations and force corrections.  It can also force people to behave in ways they otherwise would not, to the detriment of justice.  We do not know at this time which this public pressure has wrought.  And we may not know afterwards, either.
> 
> Most who should be ashamed of themselves never will be.  If Zimmerman is found guilty and goes to prison, they will be happy; and the fact of his guilt or innocence will be utterly irrelevant.  That's how populist anger works.  The issue is not whether Zimmerman is actually guilty or innocent to them; if he is guilty of course he should to to prison.  But if he is not, the angry mob will not care; they want punishment and retribution, not justice.  They seek blood, not a fair trial.  And nothing else will satisfy them. I hope those of you to whom this applies like the taste of it.  Your lot in life is to be a tool of others, congratulations.
> 
> If you're not sure if you're a tool, ask yourself this; if Zimmerman is tried and found not guilty, will you be satisfied with the verdict and willing to move on with your life, or will this remain a thorn in your side and proof to you that the system is racist and a murderer walked away scot-free?  If the latter, yeah, that's you.



It'll certainly be interesting to see how the court case plays out.  I'm sure this will prove to be very difficult, as the only one who really knows what happened, is Zimmerman.  Of course, what I do find interesting, is what you said about the public pressure.  Amazing how we tend to see that alot, and usually only on one side of the coin.  In other words, if a black male shot/killed a white male, why od you not see the same battle cries that we see here?

No, GZ shouldn't be arrested because a group of people eager to act like *******s and riot say so.  It should be because he was found guilty....if thats what they indeed end up finding.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> To your point, if you don't know enough of the facts to determine Zimmerman's actions, that's OK.  The Prosecution is on the case and they've investigated the facts for you (and me, the Martin family, and the State of Florida).  And the Prosecution has determined that Zimmerman's actions were very wrong.
> 
> .



So when the 1st prosecutor looked at the Facts and didnt find an outcome to your liking why was that not ok?  And if the new prosecutor had decided there still was not enough evidence to bring charges you were already spouting off about the Justice Department stepping in and charging Zimmerman.  So you dont care about the Facts you only care that Zimmerman was charged.


----------



## ballen0351

Im interested in seeing where they will hold the trial and how will they find a Jury that has not already made up its mind.  The president of the United States already made comments about the case and every lvl of Govt below him,  you had congressmen thrown out for wearing a hoodie in congress and sports star and movie stars making comments and tweets, protests across the country.  Im not sure how he gats a fair trial.


----------



## granfire

MJS said:


> It'll certainly be interesting to see how the court case plays out.  I'm sure this will prove to be very difficult, as the only one who really knows what happened, is Zimmerman.  Of course, what I do find interesting, is what you said about the public pressure.  Amazing how we tend to see that alot, and usually only on one side of the coin.  In other words, if a black male shot/killed a white male, why od you not see the same battle cries that we see here?
> 
> No, GZ shouldn't be arrested because a group of people eager to act like *******s and riot say so.  It should be because he was found guilty....if thats what they indeed end up finding.



Now, the question will be can they find 12+ people in the state who have not yet been poisoned by the media to objectively do jury duty in this case?
Or in the country?


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> Im interested in seeing where they will hold the trial and how will they find a Jury that has not already made up its mind.  The president of the United States already made comments about the case and every lvl of Govt below him,  you had congressmen thrown out for wearing a hoodie in congress and sports star and movie stars making comments and tweets, protests across the country.  Im not sure how he gats a fair trial.





granfire said:


> Now, the question will be can they find 12+ people in the state who have not yet been poisoned by the media to objectively do jury duty in this case?
> Or in the country?



Yeah, thats going to certainly be a tough process.  I certainly don't envy the lawyers.


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> What are you implying?



I'm saying that I, among many of all stripes, won't be waiting for people who perceive themselves as head of the American table, to let me know when it's OK to be outraged at slow justice or selective justice.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> I'm saying that I, among many of all stripes, won't be waiting for people who perceive themselves as head of the American table, to let me know when it's OK to be outraged at slow justice or selective justice.



So it's your party and you're outraged if you want to....

fair enough.

Just make sure your outrage is righteous and just.

And not just a bunch of grand standing.

it is my observation though that the vast majority of the professionally outraged are more often than not ignorant of the facts, not affected but the subject of their outrage or - worse yet - stand to profit a great deal from aligning themselves with 'the cause'


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> So when the 1st prosecutor looked at the Facts and didnt find an outcome to your liking why was that not ok?  And if the new prosecutor had decided there still was not enough evidence to bring charges you were already spouting off about the Justice Department stepping in and charging Zimmerman.  So you dont care about the Facts you only care that Zimmerman was charged.



It was not "OK", because clearly the first prosecutor either missed or ignored material facts that were sufficient to charge Zimmerman.  That the Justice Dept. readied itself, is a substantial indication of a possibility of a pattern of either missing or ignoring facts.  The Special Prosecutor was appointed by Governor Scott, not by "morons" like me.  Again, a substantial indication that the case deserved more than a curb-side investigation by officer so-and-so.  

So ironically, the "facts" about which I supposedly care so little about, actually were sufficient to charge George Zimmerman.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> It was not "OK", because clearly the first prosecutor either missed or ignored material facts that were sufficient to charge Zimmerman.  That the Justice Dept. readied itself, is a substantial indication of a possibility of a pattern of either missing or ignoring facts.  The Special Prosecutor was appointed by Governor Scott, not by "morons" like me.  Again, a substantial indication that the case deserved more than a curb-side investigation by officer so-and-so.
> 
> So ironically, the "facts" about which I supposedly care so little about, actually were sufficient to charge George Zimmerman.





Can you be sure?
Do you know the facts?


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> Can you be sure?
> Do you know the facts?



Were you sure of the facts before Zimmerman was charged?


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> Just make sure your outrage is righteous and just.
> 
> And not just a bunch of grand standing.
> 
> it is my observation though that the vast majority of the professionally outraged are more often than not ignorant of the facts, not affected but the subject of their outrage or - worse yet - stand to profit a great deal from aligning themselves with 'the cause'



My outrage will be what it will.  If it doesn't satisfy someone's observation, too bad.  Nothing new.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> It was not "OK", because clearly the first prosecutor either missed or ignored material facts that were sufficient to charge Zimmerman.


You know that how?  Could the second prosecutor simply had said well I dont want everyone pissed at me so Ill charge him and let a judge figure it out?



> That the Justice Dept. readied itself, is a substantial indication of a possibility of a pattern of either missing or ignoring facts.


The same Justice Dept that thought it was a good idea to send guns to Mexico that were used to kill US Border Patrol Agent the same Justice Department that then Lied about the cover up?  That Justice Dept?  



> The Special Prosecutor was appointed by Governor Scott, not by "morons" like me.  Again, a substantial indication that the case deserved more than a curb-side investigation by officer so-and-so.


Did you see the case file or case reports?  So how do you know it was a curb side investigation?  



> So ironically, the "facts" about which I supposedly care so little about, actually were sufficient to charge George Zimmerman.


So if a judge later decides alot of the "Facts" like a mothers "opinion" that a voice was her sons are not really Facts and tosses the case or Zimmerman gets found not guilty will you still feel justice was served or will you then demand a federal investigation?  



I read the page and a half statement of Prob cause (P/C) and there wasnt much "FACT"  at all in it.  Ive written longer P/C for a guy pissing in an alley then that page and a half for a Murder Charge.  I hope they have more evidence then that or this case wont last very long in the court system.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf


----------



## punisher73

Wo Fat said:


> It was not "OK", because clearly the first prosecutor either missed or ignored material facts that were sufficient to charge Zimmerman. That the Justice Dept. readied itself, is a substantial indication of a possibility of a pattern of either missing or ignoring facts. The Special Prosecutor was appointed by Governor Scott, not by "morons" like me. Again, a substantial indication that the case deserved more than a curb-side investigation by officer so-and-so.
> 
> So ironically, the "facts" about which I supposedly care so little about, actually were sufficient to charge George Zimmerman.



I was involved in a political case where no crime actually occurred.  Some leaders of the community heard various versions of what they THOUGHT happened, and I was told to do a warrant request on one of the parties involved.  It had nothing to do with "facts" and everything to do with political grandstanding and covering people's behinds.  Things are not as they seem, and only when everything is brought out in trial will we have a better picture (not the truth).


----------



## jks9199

WC_lun said:


> I see your point and I can't say I completely disagree with it.  I do think the justice system is run by human beings and sometimes that means things break down.  In those cases it takes people willing to be loud and create a stir to get things moving again.  This particular case did not happen in a vaccumn.  Trayvan Martin is not the first young black man to be killed using the no retreat law as justification.  In many of those previous cases there was little follow up investigation.  I don't blame that all on police, but I can see where the family feared the same thing would happen again.
> 
> Ballen, I do have to give you props for not taking the easy way on your investigations and doing the work neccesary to get a solid case.  If only more people would do the same in both thier personal lives and work the world would be a much better place.



Most law enforcement officers, at all levels of the system in the US, do their jobs properly and carefully, and conduct complete investigations.  There's a reason that the cases where they don't make the news...  

We have no way of knowing what investigative steps were being taken or weren't without the outcry and hullabaloo in this case.  The fact that Zimmerman was released that night doesn't mean that there was no further investigation or that he would never have been charged.  You claim that others have been killed using the Stand Your Ground laws as justification; support that.  But -- realize that justification is exactly what the law does.  It justifies an act that would, otherwise and without that justification, be illegal.


----------



## jks9199

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm coming to the realization that I'm tired of outrage.  I'm tired of populist anger.  I'm tired of protests and screaming and yelling and wearing hoodies and Guy Fawkes masks and demands for this and for that.  People run from one popular outrage to the next, whipped by the pandering media and I'm talking about on the left and the right.  Is there injustice in the world?  Yes.  Is there racism and bigotry?  Yes.  But it's all gone too far.  Shooting up police cars, black separatists issuing 'dead or alive' bounties, white separatists patrolling the streets with bad intent, it's time all ya'll *morons* sit down, shut up, and let justice do what it does.  Enough hate, enough threats, and definitely enough gunplay.  Not one of you knows what happened in the moments before Zimmerman pulled that trigger; and neither do I.  So all of our opinions on what occurred are worth precisely dick.



And the outrage won't stop -- especially if Zimmerman is found guilty of a lesser offense, or even worse, acquitted.  The federal prosecutors are, I'm sadly all too sure, already drawing up their own charging documents, and if Florida's courts don't come to the "right" decision, we'll see Zimmerman prosecuted federally.  Maybe even if they do...

He will be sued for wrongful death -- and may well find himself signing over a noteworthy portion of his paycheck to the Martin family for the rest of his life.  And that may well be quite appropriate; there's plenty he could have done just in the facts at hand, that would have prevented this tragedy.  But that doesn't mean he was automatically criminally liable, as well.


----------



## jks9199

granfire said:


> Now, the question will be can they find 12+ people in the state who have not yet been poisoned by the media to objectively do jury duty in this case?
> Or in the country?


Actually, Zimmerman may be better off going with a judge anyway...  Odds are that he's going to be presenting a rather complex case of justification.  Juries may discard the evidence and only look at the emotions, while one hopes that judges are less likely to.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> You know that how?  Could the second prosecutor simply had said well I dont want everyone pissed at me so Ill charge him and let a judge figure it out?
> 
> 
> The same Justice Dept that thought it was a good idea to send guns to Mexico that were used to kill US Border Patrol Agent the same Justice Department that then Lied about the cover up?  That Justice Dept?
> 
> 
> Did you see the case file or case reports?  So how do you know it was a curb side investigation?
> 
> 
> So if a judge later decides alot of the "Facts" like a mothers "opinion" that a voice was her sons are not really Facts and tosses the case or Zimmerman gets found not guilty will you still feel justice was served or will you then demand a federal investigation?
> 
> 
> 
> I read the page and a half statement of Prob cause (P/C) and there wasnt much "FACT"  at all in it.  Ive written longer P/C for a guy pissing in an alley then that page and a half for a Murder Charge.  I hope they have more evidence then that or this case wont last very long in the court system.
> 
> http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf



First, I don't know if I'll be any more accepting of a not-guilty verdict, than you will be accepting of a guilty verdict.  As much as some suspect (or think they know of) my/our/those people's motivations, I suspect the same of theirs.  That said, this particular prosecutor appears to be worthy of all people's trust.  So is Zimmerman's lawyer.  If a seated jury is of the same competence and integrity as the prosecution and the defense, I for one, will accept whatever verdict comes.  

Second, a criminal complaint or probable cause document is written in very much the same style as a civil complaint.  Neither one is going to load up the document with "facts" that will educate the other side.  It's the way things are done in the _practice_ of law.


----------



## jks9199

ballen0351 said:


> I read the page and a half statement of Prob cause (P/C) and there wasnt much "FACT"  at all in it.  Ive written longer P/C for a guy pissing in an alley then that page and a half for a Murder Charge.  I hope they have more evidence then that or this case wont last very long in the court system.
> 
> http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf



Wow... A lot of loaded language and assumptions without facts to support them.  It's not even clear when some of Zimmerman's statements were made, or how they know what he thought and believed at the time.  Granted that an affidavit to support PC is one-sided -- there's a lot left out of that one.


----------



## ballen0351

jks9199 said:


> Wow... A lot of loaded language and assumptions without facts to support them.  It's not even clear when some of Zimmerman's statements were made, or how they know what he thought and believed at the time.  Granted that an affidavit to support PC is one-sided -- there's a lot left out of that one.



Thats exactly what I thought when I read it  WOW was the first thing that popped in my mind. I wish I could get away with PC statements like that


----------



## Bill Mattocks

When OJ was found not guilty, you know what I thought?  I thought that a jury had found that the state had been unable to prove OJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that's how our justice system works.  In fact, it has often been said that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than that one innocent man be sent to prison.

Was OJ guilty?  I have no idea.  It sure seems like it from that I read.  And he lost a civil lawsuit, which had a much lower burden of proof (preponderance of evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt).

But you know what?  That's how our system works.  And it's the best system on the planet.  Warts and all.  I must some kind of idiot; when a jury presents its findings, I ACCEPT IT.

I may choose to believe that the jury was wrong; that's my right to have an opinion.  But I'm not going to go out and demonstrate in the streets, I'm not going to riot, I'm not going to burn the damned city down or throw Molotov cocktails and rocks at the police.  The system doesn't always produce the correct results, but it's not designed to be 100% accurate; it's designed to follow the rules and procedures we have to determining guilt and innocence.  Could it be better?  Yes, it could.  And working to make it better is a good and noble thing.  I don't for a moment suggest that nothing needs to be fixed with our justice system.  But those are questions for the system; not questions for an individual case.

Zimmerman may be found guilty.  If he is, I am going to believe that the jury, good people and true, weighed the facts in evidence and came to a conclusion that they unanimously supported.

Zimmerman may be found innocent.   If he is, I'm going to believe the same thing about the jury.

That doesn't mean that Zimmerman did or did not commit a crime.  It does not mean he was or was not lying in the statement he gave to police.  It does not mean that I won't have an opinion on the matter that differs from that of the jury.

But the answer will be what the answer will be.  I do not control that, I have faith in our system to work correctly far more often than it does not, and I am prepared to accept the conclusion our system reaches.

I know, insane.  How dare I believe our system works?  How dare I believe that the outcome, whatever it ends up being, is just and fair?  How dare I?


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> First, I don't know if I'll be any more accepting of a not-guilty verdict, than you will be accepting of a guilty verdict.


I got no problem with Zimmerman being found guilty I dont care either way.  i do care about somone being railroaded but the media.  



> That said, this particular prosecutor appears to be worthy of all people's trust.


Not after reading that PC statement.  I hope she has alot more real evidence then that




> So is Zimmerman's lawyer.  If a seated jury is of the same competence and integrity as the prosecution and the defense, I for one, will accept whatever verdict comes.


No you have already said you hope the jury remembers its not the 50's in the south so your only concerned about a guilty verdict.  



> Second, a criminal complaint or probable cause document is written in very much the same style as a civil complaint.  Neither one is going to load up the document with "facts" that will educate the other side.  It's the way things are done in the _practice_ of law.


Sorry but you have to provide information to the other side its the law its called discovery.  The only thing I saw in that PC that was even PC was Zimmerman said he shot him and we found a shell casing and Martin was dead the rest was all opinons with no facts to back them up.  Its ok to use you opinion in a PC if you can show why your right.  For example I was a drug investigator I always used my opinon to say if somene was possing drugs for more then personal use.  But I had to back that opinon up with factual statements like the quanity or weight, street values, lack of paraphernalia, packaging products, the way it was packaged, presence of other items like scales, ledgers, large sums of currency.  I cant just say yeah he sells drugs because I say so I have to prove it.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> Were you sure of the facts before Zimmerman was charged?



Unlike you I don't jump to conclusions.
I have no facts, because I don't follow the case in the media.

I don't watch the news, hardly go on FB and never tweeted. I usually turn off the TV during the day when i can get away with it, right after Pokemon is over (I kid you not)

I don't assume that because the parents made a public ruckus that they are right. 

I don't assume because Zimmerman was not thrown under the jail that night that he was getting off or in fact innocent.
(matter of fact I am of the opinion that he is a wannabe cop and got himself into a heap of trouble! How it legally pans out remains to be seen.)


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I got no problem with Zimmerman being found guilty I dont care either way.  i do care about somone being railroaded but the media.
> 
> 
> Not after reading that PC statement.  I hope she has alot more real evidence then that
> 
> 
> 
> No you have already said you hope the jury remembers its not the 50's in the south so your only concerned about a guilty verdict.
> 
> 
> Sorry but you have to provide information to the other side its the law its called discovery.  The only thing I saw in that PC that was even PC was Zimmerman said he shot him and we found a shell casing and Martin was dead the rest was all opinons with no facts to back them up.  Its ok to use you opinion in a PC if you can show why your right.  For example I was a drug investigator I always used my opinon to say if somene was possing drugs for more then personal use.  But I had to back that opinon up with factual statements like the quanity or weight, street values, lack of paraphernalia, packaging products, the way it was packaged, presence of other items like scales, ledgers, large sums of currency.  I cant just say yeah he sells drugs because I say so I have to prove it.



First, I've worked in the law field for over 20 years, so you need not try explain discovery to me.  It occurs on it's own timelines and according to its own procedure (criminal and civil).  You may be experienced in dealing with criminal activity, but if you gonna try to explain litigating--criminal or civil--then know your stuff.  



> No you have already said you hope the jury remembers its not the 50's in the south so your only concerned about a guilty verdict.



A jury in the 50s had no problem with nullification.  That's what I'm talking about.  If a modern jury, reflective of the state of Florida says thumbs up to Mr. Zimmerman, so be it.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> First, I've worked in the law field for over 20 years, so you need not try explain discovery to me.  It occurs on it's own timelines and according to its own procedure (criminal and civil).  You may be experienced in dealing with criminal activity, but if you gonna try to explain litigating--criminal or civil--then know your stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> A jury in the 50s had no problem with nullification.  That's what I'm talking about.  If a modern jury, reflective of the state of Florida says thumbs up to Mr. Zimmerman, so be it.



First, how can anybody know what your background is.
Second, for somebody with that background you do sound like nothing but a guilty verdict will do.

And that is a dangerous, preconceived notion. 

I am of the opinion that aside form the DA's office and the police department all 'facts' are conjecture and hearsay. 

I am guessing that as soon as the deliberation is underway the police will get on high alert, for the case Mr Zimmerman should be acquitted....

I think this case will leave the system with a black eye.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> First, I've worked in the law field for over 20 years, so you need not try explain discovery to me.  It occurs on it's own timelines and according to its own procedure (criminal and civil).  You may be experienced in dealing with criminal activity, but if you gonna try to explain litigating--criminal or civil--then know your stuff.


Well I do know my stuff.  I actually work in the Criminal Justice system which it what we are talking about.  Ive worked Homicide cases as a detective and I actually have written Prob Cause statements for Murder and Id be fired if I turned in a page and a half of that crap.  Ive investigated, testified, and convicted people for Murder.  Im daily at the States Attys office doing case prep and preparing my reports and documention for Discovery to "educate" the other side. Someone with 20 years in the "law field" whatever that means should know better then to jump to conclusions about a case when the only "facts" they have were from CNN and NBC. 





> A jury in the 50s had no problem with nullification.  That's what I'm talking about.  If a modern jury, reflective of the state of Florida says thumbs up to Mr. Zimmerman, so be it.


So if a modern jury today finds Zimmerman not guilty your ok with it?


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> First, how can anybody know what your background is.
> Second, for somebody with that background you do sound like nothing but a guilty verdict will do.
> 
> And that is a dangerous, preconceived notion.
> 
> I am of the opinion that aside form the DA's office and the police department all 'facts' are conjecture and hearsay.
> 
> I am guessing that as soon as the deliberation is underway the police will get on high alert, for the case Mr Zimmerman should be acquitted....
> 
> I think this case will leave the system with a black eye.



Fair enough.  I have worked for 22 years as a litigation specialist and paralegal on several high profile civil cases, as well as three cases involving police shootings/killings of unarmed citizens where service of no-knock warrants were erroneously attempted.  Not to patronize, but when you work in litigation, you become proficient with several areas of industry--including the criminal justice system.  

So while some guy might be a good cop, his or her "cop knowledge" has limitations, just like my litigation knowledge has limitations when it comes to law enforcement.  

Yes, I am quite aware of how I'm perceived.  And right now the perception is that nothing short of Zimmerman's head on a plate will be a miscarriage.  Not my desire, but then I'm not too concerned if someone doesn't believe that.  

As to the system getting a black eye ... it's had one for centuries.  Most people--myself included--are simply fortunate enough not to be on the business end of it.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> Well I do know my stuff.  I actually work in the Criminal Justice system which it what we are talking about.  Ive worked Homicide cases as a detective and I actually have written Prob Cause statements for Murder and Id be fired if I turned in a page and a half of that crap.  Ive investigated, testified, and convicted people for Murder.  Im daily at the States Attys office doing case prep and preparing my reports and documention for Discovery to "educate" the other side. Someone with 20 years in the "law field" whatever that means should know better then to jump to conclusions about a case when the only "facts" they have were from CNN and NBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a modern jury today finds Zimmerman not guilty your ok with it?



As I mentioned above, I've worked on civil matters where a police officers shot and/or killed unarmed citizens while executing no-knock warrants.  One case in particular, *Gallardo et al. v. Reinnecius, et al.* , happened in Dinuba, CA.  I worked for Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco (Arturo Gonzalez was the primary attorney of record), on behalf of the widow and children of a 60+ year old man who was shot and killed.  We saw how certain people closed ranks.  We saw how the system _unofficially_ worked.  Not content to simply accept the "facts" as were presented, we won at trial and the jury awarded $12 million in damages.  So again, I feel about some, the same way that you feel about some.  I trust some, the way you trust some.

As I said, if a jury reflective of Florida finds Zimmerman not guilty, I will accept that.  But that could never have been a possibility unless Zimmerman was properly arrested and charged.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> As I mentioned above, I've worked on civil matters where a police officers shot and/or killed unarmed citizens while executing no-knock warrants. One case in particular, *Gallardo et al. v. Reinnecius, et al.* , happened in Dinuba, CA. I worked for Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco (Arturo Gonzalez was the primary attorney of record), on behalf of the widow and children of a 60+ year old man who was shot and killed. We saw how certain people closed ranks. We saw how the system _unofficially_ worked. Not content to simply accept the "facts" as were presented, we won at trial and the jury awarded $12 million in damages. So again, I feel about some, the same way that you feel about some. I trust some, the way you trust some.


So your Bias against law enforcement so no matter what unless the "facts" fit your version on this case the cops were wrong


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> So your Bias against law enforcement so no matter what unless the "facts" fit your version on this case the cops were wrong



Not biased; experienced.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> First, I don't know if I'll be any more accepting  of a not-guilty verdict, than you will be accepting of a guilty verdict.   As much as you suspect (or think you know of) motivations, I suspect  the same of yours.  That said, this particular prosecutor appears to be  worthy of all people's trust.  So is Zimmerman's lawyer.  If a seated  jury is of the same competence and integrity as the prosecution and the  defense, I for one, will accept whatever verdict comes.
> 
> Second, a criminal complaint or probable cause document is written in  very much the same style as a civil complaint.  Neither one is going to  load up the document with "facts" that will educate the other side. It's  the way things are done in the _practice_ of law.



I can't speak for ballen -- but I don't *know *what happened that night.  I don't *know *what  the "right" verdict should be; that's the purpose of the trial.  In a  way, I'm glad that Zimmerman was charged, because if he's acquitted, it  won't come back to get him down the road.  I am not saying that he  shouldn't be convicted; again, I don't know.  But at least they won't  turn up and charge him some time down the road.  Also -- he starts with  the presumption of innocence.  The prosecution must overcome that in  their case in chief -- and I think that the prosecutor here set up a  tough case to prove by going for 2nd degree murder.  Manslaughter would  have been much easier.

While the affidavit isn't required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt -- this one has plenty of questionable statements without support.


----------



## jks9199

Bill Mattocks said:


> When OJ was found not guilty, you know what I thought?  I thought that a jury had found that the state had been unable to prove OJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that's how our justice system works.  In fact, it has often been said that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than that one innocent man be sent to prison.



FYI... there are 2 easy ways to decide that there was and is reasonable doubt from the criminal trial of OJ Simpson.  If you don't believe that he could have traveled from the murder scene to his residence in the time allotted.  I can't say for certain -- but I have heard from people with more local knowledge that it could be tight.  Also... I have been told that his son could have matched the same DNA profile, as tested.  Either line of reasoning could establish reasonable doubt.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Not biased; experienced.



yes thats prob a better term and more to what I was trying to say.  You have made your living off the mistakes other officers have made but to judge all officers off the mistakes and poor judgement of a few is no better then what you accuse Zimmerman of doing.  However I can see why you would view officers in that light but there are FAR more good officers then there are not.  Ive been sued 3 times in my job so far so I know how Lawyers that specalize in police cases talk to and act towards and think of law enforcement.  Ive had them make snarky comments to me in the halls of the court house.  I understand it they are wrong but I get it but the actions of a few tarnish us all.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> Fair enough.  I have worked for 22 years as a litigation specialist and paralegal on several high profile civil cases, as well as three cases involving police shootings/killings of unarmed citizens where service of no-knock warrants were erroneously attempted.  Not to patronize, but when you work in litigation, you become proficient with several areas of industry--including the criminal justice system.
> 
> So while some guy might be a good cop, his or her "cop knowledge" has limitations, just like my litigation knowledge has limitations when it comes to law enforcement.
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of how I'm perceived.  And right now the perception is that nothing short of Zimmerman's head on a plate will be a miscarriage.  Not my desire, but then I'm not too concerned if someone doesn't believe that.
> 
> As to the system getting a black eye ... it's had one for centuries.  Most people--myself included--are simply fortunate enough not to be on the business end of it.



Is there perhaps the slightest possibility that, based on your own experience, you are not quite looking at this case objectively?

That's really all I think we're asking for here.  Look at things objectively, and let the process work itself out.  You've already decided, apparently based on the media coverage (which we already KNOW was biased due the simple, documented editing and manipulation of the 911 calls and of Zimmerman's history), that the Sanford PD wasn't going to do a fair and complete investigation without the public pressure, and that the initial prosecutor, in possession of the results of their investigation, couldn't have made a fair and proper decision since you disagree with it.

I realize that some of my responses here have probably seemed to be defending Zimmerman and saying that he's right -- but I'm not.  I'm defending his right to a fair trail and impartial assessment of the facts at each level of review.


----------



## jks9199

One more thing...  I do think that there is a serious case to be made for manslaughter.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know Florida law.  As I've read the Stand Your Ground law, it prevented an immediate arrest for any thing with a credible case for self defense.  I may easily be wrong... but that's how it reads to me.  I think Zimmerman did play a major role in creating the circumstances that led to his confrontation with Trayvon Martin, and that, since he was carrying a gun legally, there was the foreseeable potential for him using that gun.  He moved beyond the normal expectations of a citizen when he began to follow Martin.  But to make that case may easily have required investigation beyond the initial night's work.


----------



## Wo Fat

jks9199 said:


> I can't speak for ballen -- but I don't *know *what happened that night.  I don't *know *what  the "right" verdict should be; that's the purpose of the trial.  In a  way, I'm glad that Zimmerman was charged, because if he's acquitted, it  won't come back to get him down the road.  I am not saying that he  shouldn't be convicted; again, I don't know.  But at least they won't  turn up and charge him some time down the road.  Also -- he starts with  the presumption of innocence.  The prosecution must overcome that in  their case in chief -- and I think that the prosecutor here set up a  tough case to prove by going for 2nd degree murder.  Manslaughter would  have been much easier.
> 
> While the affidavit isn't required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt -- this one has plenty of questionable statements without support.



Whether one thinks that GZ probably should be acquitted, or whether one believes that he probably should be convicted is usually a matter of preference.  As you said we don't*know* for sure, so what better way to bring it to a public disposition than through the court.  

Is a 2nd degree murder charge too high when we admittedly "don't *know*" what happened?  I'm not sure we can have it both ways.  But in any event, there is a lesser inclusive charge of manslaughter that will be available to a jury.  If the facts support that charge--or none at all--the jury will say so.  

As to the affidavit, we can certainly look to the prevailing standard for reasonable cause.  Not just for George Zimmerman.  But reasonable cause for the garden variety criminal defendants arrested and charged every day.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> . As you said we don't*know* for sure, so what better way to bring it to a public disposition than through the court.


Thats the part that bothers me its not the courts job to take cases just to settle the public down.  



> As to the affidavit, we can certainly look to the prevailing standard for reasonable cause. Not just for George Zimmerman. But reasonable cause for the garden variety criminal defendants arrested and charged every day.


thats my other issue  that PC statment didnt have any prob cause other then zimmerman said he shot martin, martin died and they recovered the gun a shell casing.  All the rest of that was just not facts.  As a civil atty or somone that works for one if you had a client come to your office charged with murder with that PC statement you would be chomping at the bit to take that case.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> Fair enough.  I have worked for 22 years as a litigation specialist and paralegal on several high profile civil cases, as well as three cases involving police shootings/killings of unarmed citizens where service of no-knock warrants were erroneously attempted.  Not to patronize, but when you work in litigation, you become proficient with several areas of industry--including the criminal justice system.


cuts both ways.



> So while some guy might be a good cop, his or her "cop knowledge" has limitations, just like my litigation knowledge has limitations when it comes to law enforcement.


well, assuming other wise would be presumptious...



> Yes, I am quite aware of how I'm perceived.  And right now the perception is that nothing short of Zimmerman's head on a plate will be a miscarriage.  Not my desire, but then I'm not too concerned if someone doesn't believe that.


that would (and rightfully should) exclude you and other who think like you from the jury pool.
You get the point?




> As to the system getting a black eye ... it's had one for centuries.  Most people--myself included--are simply fortunate enough not to be on the business end of it.



true enough, but it does work more often than not. so what's your point?


Aside from the man who pulled the trigger and a handful of people who might have heard something, nobody knows the facts.

if Mr Zimmerman is found guilty, so be it. If not, I am sure a jury will know why.
Until then, everything else is conjecture. 

( and while we are on the matter of black eyes, what's your take on the OJ Simpson verdict?)


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> As to the affidavit, we can certainly look to the prevailing standard for reasonable cause.  Not just for George Zimmerman.  But reasonable cause for the garden variety criminal defendants arrested and charged every day.



I don't know Florida law.  But it was problematically short on information by the standards that I'm a familiar with.  As ballen has noted, all it really establishes is that Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Martin died as a result of being shot.  The rest is unsupported statements and conjecture.  For example, when did Zimmerman make those statements?  During the 911 call?  At a subsequent interview?  How do the Affiants know what motivated Zimmerman?  If, for example, he stated in an interview "I believed he was a criminal."  -- why not say exactly that?


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> ( and while we are on the matter of black eyes, what's your take on the OJ Simpson verdict?)


The criminal verdict?  Prosecution did a poor job.  There was too much evidence against Simpson for them to lose.  Some might say that it was jury nullification.  And that would be a fair argument.

The civil verdict?  A proper one.  

Few would argue that it's poetic justice that he's in prison now.


----------



## Wo Fat

jks9199 said:


> I don't know Florida law.  But it was problematically short on information by the standards that I'm a familiar with.  As ballen has noted, all it really establishes is that Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Martin died as a result of being shot.  The rest is unsupported statements and conjecture.  For example, when did Zimmerman make those statements?  During the 911 call?  At a subsequent interview?  How do the Affiants know what motivated Zimmerman?  If, for example, he stated in an interview "I believed he was a criminal."  -- why not say exactly that?


I don't know Florida law either, but the Affidavit--to me--establishes more than just A shot B dead.  It establishes that:

>Martin was lawfully in a place where he had business to be (he was living in the neighborhood); 
>that Zimmerman also lived in the neighborhood; 
>that Zimmerman observed Martin and deemed him to be suspicious; 
>that Zimmerman was asked by a dispatcher not to follow Martin; 
>that Zimmerman was advised that an officer was en route;
>that Zimmerman made disparaging references to people other than Martin (i.e., "these azzholes, they always get away")
>that Martin was on the phone while walking (again, in his own neighborhood)
>that Martin's mother did listen to the 911 recording and identified her son's voice as yelling for help;
>that a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin ensued; and
>that Zimmerman shot Martin and Martin died.

Strong and very reasonable inferences can be drawn from each of the points I just listed, without documents or testimony needed to support each point.  Not big kangaroo leaps of inference, but the kind of inference that supports the notion that Martin was in a place where he had a right to be and that he was likely heading home.


----------



## Cryozombie

I have a question.  When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to?  Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why.  Could he mean "those people" as in "the trespassers in the neighborhood the cops never find when we call them?"

I think we are quick to lable anyone saying "you people" "people like you" "those kinds of people" etc... as automatically racist statements... when they very well could mean anything.  If I said to Derrick Rose "You people need to get your act together" would I be rascist, or talking about the Chicago Bulls in general?  

You really can't know, can you?


----------



## Wo Fat

Anyway ...

Hey friend from yesterday, I tried to reply to your PM but your Inbox isn't accepting any more messages.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Cryozombie said:


> I have a question.  When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to?  Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why.



I never assumed for a moment it was meant as racist.

I think people bring their own agendas and backgrounds to such determinations.  Sometimes innocently, other times not so much.

When I was in the Marine Corps, a fellow Marine took offense once when I said _"Boy oh boy"_ as a general exclamation.  I grew up saying it.  He thought I was calling him a 'boy'.  I apologized and immediately struck it from my lexicon; but I honestly didn't mean it that way.  And I'm sure my fellow Marine was not trying to make any words I used into offensive racist terms; he was just raised hearing that word in a very different context.  I get it.

As to 'those people,' my assumption was that he meant the criminals that burglarize houses and get away before the police arrive, over and over.

We've had a series of burglaries in Detroit recently (not unusual, Detroit is crime-riddled) but they are notable in that they people who live in them had security systems; in one case, the security company didn't bother to show up, so the police also refused to respond (Detroit PD policy, the security company has to be on scene or they won't respond to residential alarms) and in the other case, the security company responded, found a broken window and then waited for the police while the burglars emptied the house in front of them; right in front of their faces.  The commend 'these people' was used in reference to those that just keep getting away and seem to get more and more brazen.  I never took it as racist, since the burglars, homeowners, security officers, and police were all black in those cases.  'These people' simply meant the criminals.  Duh.


----------



## Wo Fat

Cryozombie said:


> I have a question.  When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to?  Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why.  Could he mean "those people" as in "the trespassers in the neighborhood the cops never find when we call them?"
> 
> I think we are quick to lable anyone saying "you people" "people like you" "those kinds of people" etc... as automatically racist statements... when they very well could mean anything.  If I said to Derrick Rose "You people need to get your act together" would I be rascist, or talking about the Chicago Bulls in general?
> 
> You really can't know, can you?



Except he didn't say "those people".  He said "these a$$holes...".  He used a pejorative; a derogatory term, not an objective or innocuous term.  

Now, if you hear someone say " these infidels, they always get away with this ...", are they just talking about people who get away with being unfaithful?


----------



## Sukerkin

What does seem clear is that there is no attempt being made here to have a reasonable discussion of what the facts are behind this case.  Plenty of supposition and Straw Men walking the thread, however; there might be entertainment to find in such posting but very little in the way of understanding or enlightenment.

Maybe we can steer the conversation back to a more profitable tone before it slips off track?


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> I have a question.  When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to?  Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why.  Could he mean "those people" as in "the trespassers in the neighborhood the cops never find when we call them?"
> 
> I think we are quick to lable anyone saying "you people" "people like you" "those kinds of people" etc... as automatically racist statements... when they very well could mean anything.  If I said to Derrick Rose "You people need to get your act together" would I be rascist, or talking about the Chicago Bulls in general?
> 
> You really can't know, can you?



At this stage of the game, I don't recall what he said....these people, these *******s.  I suppose it would depend on the person hearing the comment and the way they take it.  One can assume that whatever term he was using, it is being used to describe the person or persons who're causing issues in the neighborhood.  Zimmerman most likely called them a name and is highly frustrated, because, like I've said before, he's of the mind that when a call is placed to the cops, an officer should materialize there in 2 seconds.  Sorry, doesnt work that way.


----------



## billc

To honor Sukerkin' s wishes, Iwill take the thread back on topic...Did you see the presiding judge on the case...she's kinda hot.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/13/Judge-May-Have-Conflict-In-Zimmerman-Case

And before anyone says anything, this thread is 33 pages long, everything up to now has already been discussed, the discussion based on absolutely no known factual evidence that we have access to, so yes...the judge is hot....


----------



## Wo Fat

A more profitable tone is always a good thing.  In that spirit, I wonder if I might offer up the opportunity to evaluate something.  Each month, I send a newsletter to my students, colleagues, friends, etc.  Below is a draft of this months.  I welcome any comments or critiques:

_*A Word on Stand Your Ground*_
*
If you havent heard the names Trayvon Martin (or George Zimmerman) by now, youve been out of the country for a good long timegood for you!   I wont blog about it here, but should you need some background on the case, then let Google be your friend.  

A major component of that case, however, is the legal doctrine known as Stand Your Ground.  In theory, it is a concept of personal self-defense that allows a person to use force (sometimes lethal) to defend him or herself without having a duty to retreat, if he or she reasonably believes that a threat exists.   For all but the most passive and pacifist among usnot to judge or condemn anyone for being non-violentthe right to defend ones self seems as natural of a right as one can possess.  But  theres theory and theres reality.  And its the application of the human element that often screws up a perfectly good theory.  Still, when it comes to Stand Your Ground, the questions quickly become: what is your ground?; where is your ground?; and what kind of a stand did you take?

As martial artists, do we have a higher standard when it comes to self-defense?  Before you answer, know this; there are elements of some states Stand Your Ground laws that allow ones ground to follow the threat.  As a policy or political matter, I have no critique here.  However, as a martial arts instructor, I have not nor will I teach anyone to transition from self-defense to self-offense.  The very essence of our techniques rely on the premise that we have exhausted all efforts to avoid the threat; that the threat is upon us; and that we are about to be engaged in combat to protect ourselves, a loved one, and/or someone who actually needs the same protection.  Unless we are sparring, we as martial artists are not in the business of pursuing, enticing, luring, or provoking any person who we believe is a threat.   While some laws may allow citizens to theoretically move your ground, I believe that we as martial artists should be held to a slightly higher standard.    Not a bad standard to have.

Sifu*


----------



## billc

I just have to say that a few here on the thread seem to equate taking a martial art as a hobby is something that makes people special, implying a higher level of "something" or a greater perceived knowledge of "something."  It's a hobby or something we do to make a little money.  We aren't SEALs, we aren't warrior monks, were regular folk who like martial arts instead of tennis, or including tennis, or collecting stamps or knitting.  I would say let's not try to elevate our hobby into something more than it is, or try to make us something more, or less than what we are.  By all means do it if you want, but I'm not.    We are people, no more, no less.  Zimmerman and Martin are people and mistakes in judgement were made, probably by both guys.  It lead to a tragic outcome.  Now the courts have it.


----------



## billc

Have you seen the judge...am I right or am I right...?


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> I just have to say that a few here on the thread seem to equate taking a martial art as a hobby is something that makes people special, implying a higher level of "something" or a greater perceived knowledge of "something."  It's a hobby or something we do to make a little money.  We aren't SEALs, we aren't warrior monks, were regular folk who like martial arts instead of tennis, or including tennis, or collecting stamps or knitting.  I would say let's not try to elevate our hobby into something more than it is, or try to make us something more, or less than what we are.  By all means do it if you want, but I'm not.    We are people, no more, no less.  Zimmerman and Martin are people and mistakes in judgement were made, probably by both guys.  It lead to a tragic outcome.  Now the courts have it.



Oh the Humanity!
I am agreeing with billi!

It's 2012....I am scared now!


----------



## Cryozombie

Wo Fat said:


> Except he didn't say "those people".  He said "these a$$holes...".  He used a pejorative; a derogatory term, not an objective or innocuous term.



Well, all I gotta say to this is that if calling someone an ******* automatically means "Black People" then there sure are a lot of people that think I am Black myself.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Now that there is opposition ramping up for Stand Your Ground laws, I am worried because once again, people are morons, sheep, and easily led.

Those arguing against the various state laws are referring to them in the most histrionic of ways; they are not laws designed to protect victims from malicious prosecution, they are licenses to kill.  And why?  Why because Stand Your Ground says if you feel threatened in any way, you can just whip out your roscoe and start blasting away.

They conveniently leave out one little word; "reasonably."  That word means that a person cannot just start shooting people willy-nilly.  There is an external standard that must be met.

And this is not different in a material way from former laws, known as 'Duty to Retreat'.  Duty to Retreat laws said the same thing; the standard for using deadly force in self-defense is the 'reasonable person' standard.  The only thing that is different between DTR and SYG is that SYG means you do not have to first attempt to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The 'reasonable person' standard is the same.

If people honestly believe that the so-called 'reasonable man' is NOT reasonable, or that the self-defense laws that invoke that standard are not honestly applied, then I can at least understand the objection.  However, in that case, their real objection is to the notion of what people reasonably consider a threat to life; not 'Stand Your Ground'.

With regard to the Zimmerman case; I continue to believe that SYG had little or nothing to do with the shooting or the claim of self-defense.  Even under the previous law, any 'Duty to Retreat' is satisfied if the person is, as Zimmerman said he was, flat on their back on the ground, having their head pounded into the pavement.  If Zimmerman is telling the truth (which no one knows, of course), then he could by no means retreat at that point.  So SYG simply does not matter in this case; the former self-defense law would have applied just as readily.

With regard to comments about martial artists holding themselves or being held to higher standards, that's up to each person.  If you wish to refrain from using deadly force in self-defense, that is your business.  I would suggest that to attempt to apply it to other people because you feel they have been sufficiently trained to avoid the use of deadly force would be foolish.  How would one go about applying such a standard?  Who has been sufficiently trained?  To whom does it apply?  Black belts?  I mean, come on.  I know black belts who are essentially dojo tigers (not in my dojo, but I'm just saying).  They can't defend themselves for anything.  I know at least one black belt who has an aversion to hitting people and won't spar.  I know a couple green belts who can destroy just about anyone they come across, in or out of the dojo.  So how do you apply this magical standard?  You can't, and that's the problem.  There is no objective measure of anyone's ability to defend themselves.  It's the same reason that DUI standards test B.A.C. and not how drunk a person is; there is no objective standard to determine how impaired someone is, so we use the only objective standard we can; even if it is not precised when applied to individuals.

I absolutely reject notions that Zimmerman's having followed Martin have anything to do with Zimmerman having disregarded dispatcher requests to not follow Martin.  Where the 'confrontation' began has nothing to do with anything.  What matters is that there was a struggle; we know this.  During that struggle, Zimmerman says he was on the ground with Martin; we also know this.  Zimmerman says he was being assaulted by Martin; this we do not know.  The question of 'reasonable' use of self-defense comes down to the moments before the trigger was pulled.  There were no elements that would bar the use of deadly force in self-defense; Zimmerman, no matter what anyone wants to believe, was not breaking the law by either confronting or being confronted by Martin (no matter which it was).  Since he was legally armed, and he was legally where he was (as was Martin), the question of self-defense comes down to whether or not he was 'reasonably' in fear of his life when he was on the ground with Martin.  This we don't know.  I don't know, you don't know, no one knows.

The prosecution has chosen to go a different direction.  They are claiming he intended to 'go after' and attack or kill Martin, which eliminates the entire question of self-defense.  That's a bold claim; I feel it's a tough pull.  I seriously doubt that they can prove to a jury or a judge what was in Zimmerman's heart when he got out of his truck.  However, it has also been pointed out that a jury can choose to find guilt in a lesser included offense, such as manslaughter.  I don't know if they'll be able to make that case either.  I can't claim to know what's going to happen; judges and juries do what they do without my consultation; and the prosecution may have facts that are not known to the public.  But if the question of intent is disregarded by the judge or jury, which the prosecution claims and Zimmerman denies, then it comes back to the moments of the struggle itself; everything else is chaff being thrown in the air to confuse and obfuscate.

There, I've attempted to get this ugly monstrosity back on track.  Have fun.


----------



## WC_lun

Martial artist holding themselves to a different standard for self defense is dangerous, in my opinion.  If someone attacks you, you do what you must do to be safe.  Generally, there is only time enough to access the situation and react.  Anything more adds timeframes in which you are not actively defending yourself while being attacked.  A recipe for injury.  This doesn't mean kill every SOB that even looks at you cross eyed. You must use common sense in your self defense.  However, martial artist are not supermen.  We usually do not have the luxary to mess around when it comes time for actual self defense, no more than someone less trained.

I think we must be care ful when it comes to judging Zimmerman.  Let the courts do that.  If they have information which will convict him, then so be it.  If they lack the neccesary evidence, then let it work itself out as well.  I am interested in finding out what evidence they believe they have to support the charges.  From what I've ready so far, it would have to be something new.

The problem with the stand your ground laws in Florida do not seem to be the law itself.  It seems to be that the law is not being applied fairly across the board.  There have been other killings using this law as justification, mostly black on black.  According to several things I've read and a couple of interviews I've seen, many communities feel the police are using the law to bypass making a thourough investigation.  The message sent was, blacks killing blacks do not matter.  Of course, when a non-black person was involved in using the law as a shooting justification, the race card was able to be used to vault the story to national headlines, deserved or not.  I do not know if police depts are using the stand your ground laws to shirk invistations.  I would lean to giving police the benefit of the doubt working difficult a difficult job.  However, that is the perception in some Florida communities.  I think that should be the focus of the media attention, not a single episode.  The single episode is easier to report and manipulate though.


----------



## MJS

I think the SYG law is misunderstood by people, not necessarily anyone here, just making a general statement.  It would seem to me that people may try to use it to defend their actions, when in reality, it was their action that led to them pulling the SYG card.  For example....if someone intentionally starts a confrontation, that, IMO, makes them the aggressor.  Did they have to start a fight?  Probably not, yet they did, and then they use that SYG law, to justify anything they do.  I'm not an expert on law, FL law, but it would seem to me that if you initiate a confrontation, the SYG wouldn't apply to you.  To the other guy yes.  

Bill M made a good point when he spoke to the word resonable.  Then again, I think this is often another fine line, as whats resonable to me, could differ from 10 other people.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> I think the SYG law is misunderstood by people, not necessarily anyone here, just making a general statement.  It would seem to me that people may try to use it to defend their actions, when in reality, it was their action that led to them pulling the SYG card.  For example....if someone intentionally starts a confrontation, that, IMO, makes them the aggressor.  Did they have to start a fight?  Probably not, yet they did, and then they use that SYG law, to justify anything they do.  I'm not an expert on law, FL law, but it would seem to me that if you initiate a confrontation, the SYG wouldn't apply to you.  To the other guy yes.
> 
> Bill M made a good point when he spoke to the word resonable.  Then again, I think this is often another fine line, as whats resonable to me, could differ from 10 other people.



Two things, which I've touched on before.  First, there is nothing in the law of Florida (or most SYG laws that I'm aware of) that speak to who was the aggressor.  You keep saying as if it matters; but from the purely legal standpoint, it does not.  The law in Florida says that the person who claims SYG cannot be themselves breaking the law; but being the aggressor does not necessarily mean they were breaking the law.  I can get right up in your grill and be all kinds of angry and yelling and NOT be breaking the law.  If you decide to swing on me and put me into a position where I think I'm about to die, then SYG still applies; it does not matter one little bit that I was the aggressor.  Morally, I see your point.  From a legal standpoint, it means zero unless coupled with illegal actions.  And that's what Florida is claiming; that Zimmerman went after Martin with intent to cause bodily harm and disregard of human life; that puts him in the fight with Martin illegally and defeats SYG.  But they'll have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was in Zimmerman's mind.  I don't think they'll be able to do that; we'll see.

Second, again, you use the word 'reasonable' but then you seem to think it's a personal standard; with regard to the law, it is not.  The reference is not to what you think is reasonable or what I think is reasonable or even what Zimmerman thought was reasonable.  The law refers to the 'reasonable person' test, which is a legal standard that attempts to be objective, not subjective.

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

Zimmerman doesn't get to decide what 'reasonable' means; neither do I.  That is a test for the judge and/or jury, and it doesn't even mean what they think reasonable means; the standard is based on a legal fiction describing what the average person would consider reasonable.  It's not objective; but it's as close as we can get.

If 'reasonable' meant something different to each person and that definition was also used in court, then the SYG laws would indeed be a license to kill for those so inclined.  It means people would shoot first and later state that they reasonably felt threatened, and that would be that.  But the law does not define reasonable that way, so it's not a license to kill.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> Two things, which I've touched on before.  First, there is nothing in the law of Florida (or most SYG laws that I'm aware of) that speak to who was the aggressor.  You keep saying as if it matters; but from the purely legal standpoint, it does not.  The law in Florida says that the person who claims SYG cannot be themselves breaking the law; but being the aggressor does not necessarily mean they were breaking the law.  I can get right up in your grill and be all kinds of angry and yelling and NOT be breaking the law.  If you decide to swing on me and put me into a position where I think I'm about to die, then SYG still applies; it does not matter one little bit that I was the aggressor.  Morally, I see your point.  From a legal standpoint, it means zero unless coupled with illegal actions.  And that's what Florida is claiming; that Zimmerman went after Martin with intent to cause bodily harm and disregard of human life; that puts him in the fight with Martin illegally and defeats SYG.  But they'll have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was in Zimmerman's mind.  I don't think they'll be able to do that; we'll see.



Hmm...ok points taken, but I just assumed (wrongly apparently) that it would/did matter if there was an aggressor.  Yes, it will be intereting to see what pans out. 



> Second, again, you use the word 'reasonable' but then you seem to think it's a personal standard; with regard to the law, it is not.  The reference is not to what you think is reasonable or what I think is reasonable or even what Zimmerman thought was reasonable.  The law refers to the 'reasonable person' test, which is a legal standard that attempts to be objective, not subjective.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
> 
> Zimmerman doesn't get to decide what 'reasonable' means; neither do I.  That is a test for the judge and/or jury, and it doesn't even mean what they think reasonable means; the standard is based on a legal fiction describing what the average person would consider reasonable.  It's not objective; but it's as close as we can get.
> 
> If 'reasonable' meant something different to each person and that definition was also used in court, then the SYG laws would indeed be a license to kill for those so inclined.  It means people would shoot first and later state that they reasonably felt threatened, and that would be that.  But the law does not define reasonable that way, so it's not a license to kill.



Ok, thanks for explaining that.  I just assumed that if it was a law, standard, etc, that they're using, that at some point, someone must've created it, thus giving what they feel is their personal standard.  

Anyways, thanks for the reply.  See, its true..you learn something every day.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> Hmm...ok points taken, but I just assumed (wrongly apparently) that it would/did matter if there was an aggressor.  Yes, it will be intereting to see what pans out.



If being the aggressor can be shown to demonstrate something else, like extreme indifference to human life, intent to harm, or some other way of demonstrating that in the instant of the conflict, Zimmerman was there illegally; if he was, then self-defense laws in Florida do not apply to Zimmerman.



> Ok, thanks for explaining that.  I just assumed that if it was a law, standard, etc, that they're using, that at some point, someone must've created it, thus giving what they feel is their personal standard.
> 
> Anyways, thanks for the reply.  See, its true..you learn something every day.



The 'reasonable person' test dates back to English Common Law.  The whole purpose is to let the judge or jury put themselves into the situation that the so-called victim and play 'what would I have done'?

Of course everyone has their own concept of what is and is not reasonable; that's perfectly normal and natural.  But we don't want people to just make up their own rules as they go along and have that be law.  If it were the case, I'd be in favor of repealing SYG laws as well.

What makes me angry is that the people now agitating for repeal of SYG know perfectly well how it works, but they are intentionally misrepresenting it to stir up indignation and anger.  Being for or against SYG is something I can understand.  Intentionally lying to get what you want?  I am not a fan of those persons.


----------



## Cryozombie

Bill Mattocks said:


> If being the aggressor can be shown to demonstrate something else, like extreme indifference to human life, intent to harm, or some other way of demonstrating that in the instant of the conflict, Zimmerman was there illegally; if he was, then self-defense laws in Florida do not apply to Zimmerman.



I do know that here... the aggressor cannot claim SYG applies to them, even if they were gonna get killed because of what they did... i.e. If Zimmerman had Followed and initiated confrontation with Trayvon and he then started pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and Zimmerman shot and killed him... Zimmerman would not be protected under Illinois law.  UNLESS Zimmerman disengaged and demonstrated that the confrontation was over, and Trayvon THEN started pounding him into the pavement.  Otherwise, the aggressor cannot claim Self defense under our version of SYG


----------



## Wo Fat

MJS said:


> I think the SYG law is misunderstood by people, not necessarily anyone here, just making a general statement.  It would seem to me that people may try to use it to defend their actions, when in reality, it was their action that led to them pulling the SYG card.  For example....if someone intentionally starts a confrontation, that, IMO, makes them the aggressor.  Did they have to start a fight?  Probably not, yet they did, and then they use that SYG law, to justify anything they do.  I'm not an expert on law, FL law, but it would seem to me that if you initiate a confrontation, the SYG wouldn't apply to you.  To the other guy yes.
> 
> Bill M made a good point when he spoke to the word resonable.  Then again, I think this is often another fine line, as whats resonable to me, could differ from 10 other people.



Which is why I instruct my students accordingly.  Not that standing their ground is the wrong (or "liberal" or "democrat" or whateva) thing to do, but that they are expected to use good and sound judgment in *reasonable anticipation* of something happening.

I think you know, MJS, that I'm a Kajukenbo man.  We tend to have a screw loose in terms of defending ourselves--sometimes we go the extra mile.  And we don't apologize for that.  My point is to be extra-judicious about situations, locations, confrontations, etc.  So as much as I might be able to put hurtin' on somebody, doesn't mean that I ought to find the nearest biker bar, swagger in sporting my Al Sharpton button on my pro-affirmative action t-shirt, and stare down the nearest regular while uttering whatchoo lookin' at, b*tch!   There's a good chance I'm gonna have to stand my ground--and that I or somebody else is gonna get hurt or killed.  And while the law allows me to be there, and to stand my ground if I feel threatened, I shouldn't have placed myself in that situation.   

That's all I meant.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Cryozombie said:


> I do know that here... the aggressor cannot claim SYG applies to them, even if they were gonna get killed because of what they did... i.e. If Zimmerman had Followed and initiated confrontation with Trayvon and he then started pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and Zimmerman shot and killed him... Zimmerman would not be protected under Illinois law.  UNLESS Zimmerman disengaged and demonstrated that the confrontation was over, and Trayvon THEN started pounding him into the pavement.  Otherwise, the aggressor cannot claim Self defense under our version of SYG



Yes, that is the case in some states.

It's a tough row to hoe, though.  If a person has an argument his next-door neighbor over the dog pooping in his yard, and he and the neighbor engage in mutual combat, but the neighbor suddenly pulls a gun and shoots the person who 'started it', the law would say he is required by law to stand there and die, or run away if he can, but he's not allowed to defend his own life.  Only if he runs away AND the neighbor pursues him, and continues the violence even after the person who 'started it' begs for his life can he defend himself.

Personally, I think if it were to me, I'd want to live in a state that allowed SYG without regard to who started it, so long as the person who claimed legal self-defense was in fact not breaking the law.

"He started it" arguments can mean anything from the first guy to raise a fist to the first guy to initiate contact and everything in between.  Too messy.  Zimmerman 'started it' by following Martin.  Ah, but he is allowed by law to follow him.  Martin 'started it' by attacking Zimmerman with his fists (if he did in fact do that).  Ah, but Zimmerman got our of his vehicle looking for Martin on foot, so he 'started it'.  And on and on.  Fortunately for Zimmerman, Florida does not have that requirement to the best of my knowledge.  I personally hate "You started it! No, I didn't, YOU started it," arguments.  Ick.


----------



## Wo Fat

What's simple is what my grandma (and probably many other grandma's) said:  _Dont' start none ... won't be none_.


----------



## granfire

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...erman-to-get-fair-trial-defense-attorneys-say


----------



## Bill Mattocks

For those who feel being the 'aggressor' means you cannot claim self-defense:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...94.html?ref=chicago&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009


> Ron Psenka, 46, was sleeping in his home near the alley where the 21-year-old woman was struggling with her attacker when his wife alerted him to screams in the distance, the Chicago Tribune reports. Psenka grabbed a shovel and began chasing the assailant on foot until he was able to flag down a police patrol car, and officers arrested 27-year-old Admon Shasho.



Psenka was clearly the aggressor here.  He did not have to get involved.  He had no authority to get involved.  He didn't even dial 911 before grabbing a deadly weapon (a shovel) and confronting someone he *thought* was committing a crime.  Now suppose that the rapist (or whatever he was) had started beating on Psenka?  Psenka feels he is in danger of losing his life and he swings his shovel, cracking Shaso's skull cleanly in twain.

Can he not claim self-defense?  I mean, he is clearly the aggressor here; he clearly was not the police and had no authority to get involved.  He's obviously a wanna-be cop.  Oh, and from the photo, it looks like he's white.  From the last name of the suspect, I would guess he's of some other ethnic group.  Racism too!

Good thing Psenka didn't have to actually swing the shovel, eh?  Because according to some of you, he would have been legally required to stand there and be killed by Shasho as punishment for being the aggressor, wanna-be cop, and racist.

Am I right?  Just checking.


----------



## crushing

granfire said:


> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...erman-to-get-fair-trial-defense-attorneys-say



From the above link:


> The public outcry against Zimmerman, 28, has been intense: More than two million people signed a petition calling for his prosecution; *civil rights leaders *descended on Sanford, the Florida city where unarmed teen Martin was killed; and almost-daily rallies were held demanding Zimmerman&#8217;s arrest.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20rights

Anyone else think the media has gotten a little loose with the 'civil rights leader' label?  The so-called civil rights leaders that descended on Sanford will not be happy unless Zimmerman is found guilty and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, apparently independent of the facts of the case.


----------



## billc

Bill Mattock's thanks for bringing up that case today.  I heard Psenka on the radio today and I was hoping someone would bring it up in relation to the Zimmerman case.  After the man fled, Psenka chased after him, actually pursued him.  If Psenka had killed the attacker, would he be in the same position as Zimmerman?  The attacker is a recent Immigrant from Iraq, will there be an outcry as to Psenka's motive when he chased after the possibly muslim attacker?  Is psenka an islamaphobe?

Hmmm...Psenka also mentioned that after the attacker stopped attacking the woman and fled the scene, he pursued the attacker in order to prevent his escape and to help the police catch the attacer....hmmmm...sound familiar to anyone on this thread....


----------



## granfire

crushing said:


> From the above link:
> 
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil rights
> 
> Anyone else think the media has gotten a little loose with the 'civil rights leader' label?  The so-called civil rights leaders that descended on Sanford will not be happy unless Zimmerman is found guilty and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, apparently independent of the facts of the case.




Screw that white Spics civil rights.....</sarcasm>

Yes, that stood out, didn't it!

And this, too:


> &#8220;How can a juror feel free to vote their conscience and to place a  fair vote when they know, okay, I may be safe in here because I&#8217;m  sequestered, but once I go out there and once my name is made public,  people are going to harass me?&#8221; he said.
> If jurors face this kind  of outcry after delivering &#8220;unpopular decisions,&#8221; he said, &#8220;it may  create a chilling effect where jurors are afraid to vote not guilty  because of fear for public backlash. Who wants a bunch of media trucks  parked outside their house asking them and harassing them as to why they  made their decision?&#8221;



it will take a special breed of person to serve on this trial.


----------



## ballen0351

dont like his choice of language but he has an interesting point.
Not safe for Work


----------



## Wo Fat

From the MSNBC article:


> _Now that the legal process has begun, Zimmerman will get an opportunity to present his side of the story. _



That's laughable. Until a real prosecutor got involved, all we have ever known was Zimmerman's side of the story.

I'll tell you what this case is demonstrating.  Certain people are pleased as punch with the current iteration of the (incompetent, indifferent and corrupt) criminal system when it comes to making sure LeRoy and Tyrone do their hard time.  Ironic that the same types of folks are now concerned about fairness in the same system.  

How transparent.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> From the MSNBC article:
> 
> 
> That's laughable. Until a real prosecutor got involved, all we have ever known was Zimmerman's side of the story.
> 
> I'll tell you what this case is demonstrating.  Certain people are pleased as punch with the current iteration of the (incompetent, indifferent and corrupt) criminal system when it comes to making sure LeRoy and Tyrone do their hard time.  Ironic that the same types of folks are now concerned about fairness in the same system.
> 
> How transparent.


I think is pretty transpartent that Tyorne dont give a crap when LeRoy is killed by Rayquan but when Billy Smith kills LeRoy, Tyrone is marching in the streets.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I think is pretty transpartent that Tyorne dont give a crap when LeRoy is killed by Rayquan but when Billy Smith kills LeRoy, Tyrone is marching in the streets.



But at least they all have the criminal system in common.


----------



## zDom

ballen0351 said:


> I think is pretty transpartent that Tyorne dont give a crap when LeRoy is killed by Rayquan but when Billy Smith kills LeRoy, Tyrone is marching in the streets.




And that, folks, is racism.


----------



## Wo Fat

zDom said:


> And that, folks, is racism.


Call it what you will.  But it's America.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Call it what you will.  But it's America.



Yes this is such a bad evil county I dont know how we lasted this long without imploding evil evil America.


----------



## crushing

Wo Fat said:


> I'll tell you what this case is demonstrating. Certain people are pleased as punch with the current iteration of the (incompetent, indifferent and corrupt) criminal system when it comes to making sure *Jose* and *Juan* do their hard time. Ironic that the same types of folks are now concerned about fairness in the same system.
> 
> How transparent.



Fixed that so now it better applies to this situation.


----------



## Empty Hands

zDom said:


> And that, folks, is racism.



It's also a lie.


----------



## MJS

Wo Fat said:


> Which is why I instruct my students accordingly.  Not that standing their ground is the wrong (or "liberal" or "democrat" or whateva) thing to do, but that they are expected to use good and sound judgment in *reasonable anticipation* of something happening.



Agreed. 



> I think you know, MJS, that I'm a Kajukenbo man.  We tend to have a screw loose in terms of defending ourselves--sometimes we go the extra mile.  And we don't apologize for that.  My point is to be extra-judicious about situations, locations, confrontations, etc.  So as much as I might be able to put hurtin' on somebody, doesn't mean that I ought to find the nearest biker bar, swagger in sporting my Al Sharpton button on my pro-affirmative action t-shirt, and stare down the nearest regular while uttering whatchoo lookin' at, b*tch!   There's a good chance I'm gonna have to stand my ground--and that I or somebody else is gonna get hurt or killed.  And while the law allows me to be there, and to stand my ground if I feel threatened, I shouldn't have placed myself in that situation.
> 
> That's all I meant.



Yes sir, I do recall you're in Kaju, and yes, I certainly understand what you're saying.   Points taken.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> For those who feel being the 'aggressor' means you cannot claim self-defense:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...94.html?ref=chicago&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
> 
> 
> Psenka was clearly the aggressor here.  He did not have to get involved.  He had no authority to get involved.  He didn't even dial 911 before grabbing a deadly weapon (a shovel) and confronting someone he *thought* was committing a crime.  Now suppose that the rapist (or whatever he was) had started beating on Psenka?  Psenka feels he is in danger of losing his life and he swings his shovel, cracking Shaso's skull cleanly in twain.
> 
> Can he not claim self-defense?  I mean, he is clearly the aggressor here; he clearly was not the police and had no authority to get involved.  He's obviously a wanna-be cop.  Oh, and from the photo, it looks like he's white.  From the last name of the suspect, I would guess he's of some other ethnic group.  Racism too!
> 
> Good thing Psenka didn't have to actually swing the shovel, eh?  Because according to some of you, he would have been legally required to stand there and be killed by Shasho as punishment for being the aggressor, wanna-be cop, and racist.
> 
> Am I right?  Just checking.



Thing is, we can 'what if' this 20 different ways. In the case you present above, yeah, I can justify the guy doing what he did.  Me personally, no, I probably wouldn't have physically gotten involved.  Called the cops?  Sure.  Chase him down?  Probably not.  In the Martin/Zimmerman case, I'm viewing that as GZ assuming TM was up to no good.  I still stand by what I've said...he wanted to play hero.  And look, it bit him in the ***.


----------



## Wo Fat

Empty Hands said:


> It's also a lie.



It *is* a lie.  As long as there has been a persistent minority of Black and Brown people committing violent crimes, there has been a (virtually ignored) majority of Black and Brown men and women publicly denouncing it and calling for an end to it, be it public protests, marches, rallies or music or all of the above.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> It *is* a lie.  As long as there has been a persistent minority of Black and Brown people committing violent crimes, there has been a (virtually ignored) majority of Black and Brown men and women publicly denouncing it and calling for an end to it, be it public protests, marches, rallies or music or all of the above.




Regardless, you can't throw one person under the bus because another person got the raw deal in terms of justice.


----------



## ballen0351

Really?  Because i was actually at a homicide this weekend.  Guy was shot on a busy basketball court at about 9 pm.  Prob close to 30 people there its located in a city owned housing project.  Sad thing is all these concerned people you speak of somehow didnt see anything.  In fact one comment i got was F that N he was a snitch he got what was coming to his B azz.  Even sadder the guy wasnt an informant at all.  So ill be waiting to see these protests in the streets but im pretty sure they wont be coming.  But then again some of the famous stop snitchibg dvds were filmed a short few miles from thia murder amd i didnt see to manybpeople worried about the dvds either.




Wo Fat said:


> It *is* a lie.  As long as there has been a persistent minority of Black and Brown people committing violent crimes, there has been a (virtually ignored) majority of Black and Brown men and women publicly denouncing it and calling for an end to it, be it public protests, marches, rallies or music or all of the above.


----------



## ballen0351

Wow i need to find a better app to type that was bad sorry im using my phone


----------



## ballen0351

I just hope something good comes from martins death.  I hope these protesters do stay motivated and fight to end violence. Put thetr energy to good use.


----------



## billc

For what it is worth at this point, neighbors of Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head the day after the shooting...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE83F19Y20120416



> 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.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Wow i need to find a better app to type that was bad sorry im using my phone




could have been worse...could have been autocorrect.....


----------



## zDom

Empty Hands said:


> It's also a lie.



It is also TRUE.

At a local level in Southeast Missouri there has been in the last 20 years only ONE instance in which
a black community was out in the streets calling for justice:

When a white cop shot a black mentally disabled man.

Murders happen all the time between rival groups of young black men (Skrillas often involved). Nobody in the streets.

Of course, what none of the people in the street told me about the incident when I was there interviewing them,
was that the mentally disabled man had first hurled a rock into the window of a police cruiser, ran into a house,
and when he came out was waving a short sword and landed a cut on the police chief.

After two hits with tasers he came at them again with the sword which was when the man was shot.

I didn't hear about a sword from any of the dozen of black people out in the street telling me the guy was executed by police.

Yes, there are good people out there rightfully protesting the real violence problem &#8212; but there are plenty of black racists who
only protest when someone of another race kills one of their own. And when that happens: it IS racism, regardless of the other more reasonable protests.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> Really?  Because i was actually at a homicide this weekend.  Guy was shot on a busy basketball court at about 9 pm.  Prob close to 30 people there its located in a city owned housing project.  Sad thing is all these concerned people you speak of somehow didnt see anything.  In fact one comment i got was F that N he was a snitch he got what was coming to his B azz.  Even sadder the guy wasnt an informant at all.  So ill be waiting to see these protests in the streets but im pretty sure they wont be coming.  But then again some of the famous stop snitchibg dvds were filmed a short few miles from thia murder amd i didnt see to manybpeople worried about the dvds either.



Seems that your orientation and primary exposure to Black and Brown people is usually in the context of crime and violence.  In other words, you seem to be acquainted with the lesser of Black and Brown people than with the majority (good, decent, educated, law abiding) of us.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> Seems that your orientation and primary exposure to Black and Brown people is usually in the context of crime and violence.  In other words, you seem to be acquainted with the lesser of Black and Brown people than with the majority (good, decent, educated, law abiding) of us.



He's a cop.
Most of his interaction with any color people is through the less desirables of society....
However sine we are discussing race here and the injustice the 'brown people' experience, I suppose it's interesting to see how the 'community' reacts on a black on black crime.
Screw justice for that brother....don't snitch, don't talk to the po-po....

Do explain that to a little white girl from another part of the world.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Seems that your orientation and primary exposure to Black and Brown people is usually in the context of crime and violence.  In other words, you seem to be acquainted with the lesser of Black and Brown people than with the majority (good, decent, educated, law abiding) of us.


I work with and am good friends with many people of all races.  I also served with many minoritys in the USMC.  Ive also spoked with several of my minority friend and they ALL said the protests for Martin were an insinciere Jokes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*Mod Note:

Just a preemptive note here.  "Race" discussions can get heated.  Lets keep it in the area where official moderator involvement is not needed. 
It would be appreciated.

Thank you.

*


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I work with and am good friends with many people of all races.  I also served with many minoritys in the USMC.  Ive also spoked with several of my minority friend and they ALL said the protests for Martin were an insinciere Jokes.



Proper respect for serving.  No props for playing the "'_ALL' my minority friends say_ ..." card.  

Your personal knowledge, opinions, acquaintence and views of "minorities" is what it is.  Your writings speak it.  Just own it.


----------



## Sukerkin

Careful now, gentlemen.  That sword cuts both ways, so let's not see any blood here.  

Listen to what Cap'n Bob said above and bear it in mind when your fingers hit the keyboard.


----------



## ballen0351

I could have said ALL my friends but i dont think you care abiut what my white friends think.  But i have yet to meet anyone i know as a friend that didnt feel that way.  Martins death was tragic and totally preventable had both martin and zimmerman thought about there actions but they didnt.  I have seen more dead kids and i consider Martin to be a kid hr has not yet lived his life nor have most of the murder victims ive seen.  I just wish people would take some of this "outrage" and actually try and do some good with it instead of just seeking revenge.  In the end Zimmerman will go to jail and the crowds will go home and Martin will be forgotten and nothing will change.  Ill still be responding to young kids shot to death and nobody will care until some new case pops up whrre the "fake" rage will show up and al sharpton sees a way to make money.




Wo Fat said:


> Proper respect for serving.  No
> props for playing the "'_ALL' my minority friends say_ ..." card.
> 
> Your personal knowledge, opinions, acquaintence and views of "minorities" is what it is.  Your writings speak it.  Just own it.


----------



## ballen0351

Sukerkin said:


> Careful now, gentlemen.  That sword cuts both ways, so let's not see any blood here.
> 
> Listen to what Cap'n Bob said above and bear it in mind when your fingers hit the keyboard.



I dont believe either of us are looking for blood just trying to have an honest conversation.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I dont believe either of us are looking for blood just trying to have an honest conversation.


Agree.  Just working through a rough spot in a complex discussion.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Proper respect for serving.  No props for playing the "'_ALL' my minority friends say_ ..." card.
> 
> .



I also dont organize my friends by race or sex.  My friends are just that my friends.  They come in all colors, religions, and sexes.  I only singled out my friends for the post because you said I see minorities in a neg light do to my job.  Thats not the case at all.  I can say if anything my job has tainted my view towards ALL people.  I have a total distrust of pretty much everyone regardless of race.  I have a unique position of being hated by all groups as well.  Im accused of profiling and harrassment when I arrest a black male, a white male, hispanic male, and females of all prior groups.  Im called a racist when I go into the "black" neighborhoods and my personal fav "Why dont you go lock up a real criminal like a murderer and drug dealer in the black neighborhoods and leave us hard working white people alone"  when I arrest white people.  Hispanics claim Im only looking for illegals and am picking on them.  Fact is I dont care what color you are I enforce the law to the best of my ability and just want to do my job. Ive got it easy compared to the crap black officers get.  Ive heard some really vile things said to them by other black people in the community.  One of my real good friends grew up in a city housing project and became an officer.  Hes a really great officer because he knows everyone but he takes more crap because everyone knows him also. It gets so bad it pisses me off and they are not even saying it to me.


----------



## shesulsa

I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to shake the tree a little.

I think I know what you're talking about when you use the term "fake rage," but contest it and call it something else: Lemming rage.  

Lemming rage is incredibly intoxicating, contagious and highly employed by virtually anyone with a chip on his/her shoulder.  It is marked by the use of strong, emotional language to evoke baser feelings on topics rather than using reason. Everyone with a cause to forward uses it for their draw. I'm guilty of doing it myself.

I think people in Lemming Rage are experiencing moments they feel to be genuine because ... they feel it. Some partake in actions incited by Lemming Rage because they don't know what else to do or feel guilty not doing anything, so this seems as good as anything else.  Some people make noise just because making noise is what they think needs to be done, pure and simple.

I think their emotion for the situation is real, but perhaps whether the emotion is pointed in the right direction is suspect.

Not to judge anyone you refer to in your posts, ballen0351, but I wonder what people who sit and do nothing for social causes feel like they ARE doing to help the situation? Sometimes doing nothing is called for, but there does seem to be a turn in the tide to a long-lasting ebb in social awareness and action.  Whilst we flail about with our efforts as a nation on this, perhaps we are seeing the very beginnings of a wake which could bring about a healing tide.

Just a thought.


----------



## Wo Fat

shesulsa said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to shake the tree a little.
> 
> I think I know what you're talking about when you use the term "fake rage," but contest it and call it something else: Lemming rage.
> 
> Lemming rage is incredibly intoxicating, contagious and highly employed by virtually anyone with a chip on his/her shoulder.  It is marked by the use of strong, emotional language to evoke baser feelings on topics rather than using reason. Everyone with a cause to forward uses it for their draw. I'm guilty of doing it myself.
> 
> I think people in Lemming Rage are experiencing moments they feel to be genuine because ... they feel it. Some partake in actions incited by Lemming Rage because they don't know what else to do or feel guilty not doing anything, so this seems as good as anything else.  Some people make noise just because making noise is what they think needs to be done, pure and simple.
> 
> I think their emotion for the situation is real, but perhaps whether the emotion is pointed in the right direction is suspect.
> 
> Not to judge anyone you refer to in your posts, ballen0351, but I wonder what people who sit and do nothing for social causes feel like they ARE doing to help the situation? Sometimes doing nothing is called for, but there does seem to be a turn in the tide to a long-lasting ebb in social awareness and action.  Whilst we flail about with our efforts as a nation on this, perhaps we are seeing the very beginnings of a wake which could bring about a healing tide.
> 
> Just a thought.



It's an interesting thought.  And to _some_, it probably does apply.   Take for instance, the Tea Party during it's hey day.  Do we need our government to get its financial and ethical house in order.  For sure.  Were that many people really concerned about the deficit (or even know what the deficit is)?  Probably not.  Still, their actions of mass protest and agitation made the right people in Washington take note and pay closer attention.

But whether it's the Tea Party or a civil rights group, both seem to have studied Dr. King's philosophy of focusing (very public) attention to things that need it.  Take a look at his Letter from the Birmingham Jail.  Not to call attention to the obvious, but to comprehend his deep and intellectual rationale.  It's amazing when you think about it.  

Now, nobody can compare to MLK in terms of his depth, and character.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I also dont organize my friends by race or sex.  My friends are just that my friends.  They come in all colors, religions, and sexes.  I only singled out my friends for the post because you said I see minorities in a neg light do to my job.  Thats not the case at all.  I can say if anything my job has tainted my view towards ALL people.  I have a total distrust of pretty much everyone regardless of race.  I have a unique position of being hated by all groups as well.  Im accused of profiling and harrassment when I arrest a black male, a white male, hispanic male, and females of all prior groups.  Im called a racist when I go into the "black" neighborhoods and my personal fav "Why dont you go lock up a real criminal like a murderer and drug dealer in the black neighborhoods and leave us hard working white people alone"  when I arrest white people.  Hispanics claim Im only looking for illegals and am picking on them.  Fact is I dont care what color you are I enforce the law to the best of my ability and just want to do my job. Ive got it easy compared to the crap black officers get.  Ive heard some really vile things said to them by other black people in the community.  One of my real good friends grew up in a city housing project and became an officer.  Hes a really great officer because he knows everyone but he takes more crap because everyone knows him also. It gets so bad it pisses me off and they are not even saying it to me.



I can appreciate and respect that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

The phrase we are all genteelly struggling to find is 'angry mob'.  Angry mobs are stupid and violent.  Made up of people who are individually not stupid or violent, when whipped into a frenzy by the media and told what to be angry about, they lose their collective minds and behave like complete morons.  As is happening now.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19348_the-5-most-embarrassing-things-angry-mobs-have-rioted-over.html

Enough of being nice in describing the evil that mobs do.  Mobs hang people.  Mobs burn down buildings.  Mobs attack police.  Mobs demand 'justice' and if the mob doesn't feel they have it, they administer it themselves.  And later, no one will admit having been a member of the mob in question.  Oh, I didn't haul that man out of the jail and hang him from a tree officer.  The ANGRY MOB did that. 

If you stop being a tool of the media, you stop being a member of an angry mob, virtual or physical.  But if you're sucked into it, yes, you're stupid and violent.  Own it.


----------



## Wo Fat

Whew.  Glad I'm an educated, uppity man who's critical of media.


----------



## ballen0351

Its like the saying People are stupid.  A person is not.



Bill Mattocks said:


> The phrase we are all genteelly struggling to find is 'angry mob'.  Angry mobs are stupid and violent.  Made up of people who are individually not stupid or violent, when whipped into a frenzy by the media and told what to be angry about, they lose their collective minds and behave like complete morons.  As is happening now.
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/article_19348_the-5-most-embarrassing-things-angry-mobs-have-rioted-over.html
> 
> Enough of being nice in describing the evil that mobs do.  Mobs hang people.  Mobs burn down buildings.  Mobs attack police.  Mobs demand 'justice' and if the mob doesn't feel they have it, they administer it themselves.  And later, no one will admit having been a member of the mob in question.  Oh, I didn't haul that man out of the jail and hang him from a tree officer.  The ANGRY MOB did that.
> 
> If you stop being a tool of the media, you stop being a member of an angry mob, virtual or physical.  But if you're sucked into it, yes, you're stupid and violent.  Own it.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Whew.  Glad I'm an educated, uppity man who's critical of media.



You dont come across as critical of the media.  All your "facts" on the case are coming from the media you bit hook line and sinker on the racist coon comments and now the media has backed off that along with several other "opps" moments that have happened with the media on this case.


----------



## billc

Here is a look at the paperwork filed by the states attorney in the case.  If the article is accurate, it may be a bumpy road to the courtroom...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/walking-papers-the-incredibly-thin-speculative-zimmerman-affidavit/




> Last week, Florida prosecutor Angela Corey stunned many within the  legal establishment when she announced her office was filing a  second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman. The four-page affidavit of probable cause  filed by Corey&#8217;s office shocked legal experts, ranging from liberal  Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and liberal law blogger Jeralyn Merritt to conservative former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and talk show host Mark Levin, among others.
> 
> The affidavit starts out typically, listing the names and  qualifications of the two investigators used by the special prosecutor.  It then begins to build a case against George Zimmerman:On Sunday 2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living  at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole  County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 Store where  he purchased a can of iced tea and some Skittles. Martin then walked  back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the  townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman.  Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime.
> AdvertisementNot one paragraph into the &#8220;meat&#8221; of the affidavit, Corey&#8217;s team already made two unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> 
> ​First: there is no publicly known evidence that supports the  contention that Zimmerman &#8220;profiled&#8221; Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman&#8217;s 911  call made no reference to skin color or apparel until the police  dispatcher started pressing for a better description. If Corey&#8217;s team  had evidence that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, they should have  included it here. They did not, which not only undermines the profiling  charge in this case, but in any federal civil rights case the U.S.  Department of Justice may have been considering.





> The second unsubstantiated claim: They say Martin was not committing  or preparing to commit a crime. Zimmerman became suspicious because he  saw a figure who struck him as a person casing houses for burglary  potential. Unbeknownst to Zimmerman at the time was the fact that Martin  had been suspended from school for the possession of a &#8220;burglary tool.&#8221;  We don&#8217;t know what Martin was thinking, but his actions were erratic  enough to prompt George Zimmerman to want police to investigate.
> 
> That represents a lot of unsubstantiated speculation by a prosecutor  trying to build an affidavit to support a second-degree murder charge,  and that&#8217;s just from the first substantive paragraph.





> The next troublesome claim is the lead sentence of the following paragraph:Zimmerman, who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle, observed Martin and assumed he was a criminal.​Perhaps it is hair-splitting, but there is no evidence to support  Corey&#8217;s claim that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal. In his first  comments on the 911 call, Zimmerman claims he saw &#8220;a real suspicious  guy&#8221; acting erratically:  &#8220;Like he&#8217;s up to no good or he&#8217;s on drugs or  something. It&#8217;s raining and he&#8217;s just walking around looking about.&#8221;
> Zimmerman was merely reporting _suspicious_ behavior, just as our own Department of Homeland Security advocates with its &#8220;If You See Something, Say Something&#8221;  campaign, which has been created and promoted by cabinet officials  appointed by the Obama administration. Zimmerman saw someone acting  suspiciously, and did precisely what DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano  wants citizens to do in that situation.
> The prosecutor then made another claim not supported by the recorded evidence:The police dispatcher then informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.​The second half of that claim is a complete and apparently willful  misrepresentation of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the  police dispatcher. The closest the dispatcher ever gets to telling  Zimmerman to &#8220;wait for the officer&#8221; was when Zimmerman was attempting to  follow Martin, and the dispatcher told him, precisely: &#8220;Okay, we don&#8217;t  need you to do that.&#8221;





> Angela Corey&#8217;s team is misrepresenting the actual events as they  occurred in order to fabricate a claim that George Zimmerman disobeyed  police orders. Proving her behavior is one matter, but to be found  deliberately misrepresenting the evidence is certainly grounds for  considering disbarment.
> 
> The affidavit contained further problematic statements. The next one:During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to  people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his  neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated &#8220;these  a**holes, they always get away&#8221; and also said &#8220;these ********** punks.&#8221;​John Work, a multi-decade law enforcement veteran, caught something in this prejudicial paragraph that I&#8217;d missed on my first reading:Either Zimmerman and the investigators who wrote the  affidavit knew there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, or they  did not know about any burglaries. It&#8217;s not possible to credibly say  that anyone, including the defendant, _felt _that crimes had been  committed. If, in fact, there was or was not a series of unsolved  burglaries in that neighborhood, the cops should have included that fact  in the affidavit. It&#8217;s a lie of omission, either way.​Corey&#8217;s affidavit then made even more unsubstantiated claims:Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.  When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he  instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer  would meet him*.* Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.​The affidavit&#8217;s claim is in direct opposition to the facts as recorded on the 911 call.





> The affidavit also makes the completely unsupported claim at the end  of that paragraph that Martin &#8220;was trying to return to his home.&#8221;
> 
> There is no evidence of the sort. The timeline strongly suggests that  &#8212; having evaded Zimmerman initially and with Zimmerman terminating his  pursuit and then heading back the way he came &#8212; Martin had plenty of  time and a direct, unobstructed path home had he chosen to return  directly home. We don&#8217;t know where Martin was or what he was doing  between the time he fled Zimmerman and when the confrontation began.  What we do know is that Martin had an opportunity to make it home, and  chose not to do so for reasons we may never know.


This is going to be a rough case in the courtroom and those who really want him convicted of "something" may be disapointed, just by looking at this article.


----------



## shesulsa

I think people genuinely care about what they think are important issues but don't know what to productively do about it. I understand Mob Mentality, but I don't think all we're seeing is that, exactly.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> You dont come across as critical of the media.  All your "facts" on the case are coming from the media you bit hook line and sinker on the racist coon comments and now the media has backed off that along with several other "opps" moments that have happened with the media on this case.


I may not have come across that way, here.  But on my own blog, I have called out the mainstream media for being comprised of people who are anything but mainstream--usually, over-privileged, aloof and naive.  And one of the criticisms I had was back-pedaling on the "coons" comment.  It's what I heard.  If I'm wrong, then I am.  My other criticism with the MSM as it relates to this case, is how easily they can be bullied into making something a two-sided issue.  Weeks after Trayvon was dead and buried, they succumbed to the despicable pressure of trying to make sure that "we" all saw the not-so-innocent looking Trayvon.  And while their efforts failed, they still lost a great deal of respect.  They did not and will not do that when the next Natalie Holloway or Elizabeth Smart turns up missing.  They shouldn't have done so in this case.

As to the "facts"; yes, I reasonably relied on them to present what would or could be construed as evidence.  And if I were inclined to view Trayvon as just another dead thug, I wouldn't have even bothered. But I wanted to know what I could, without being completely reliant on the same media that I knew would ultimately do an about face, and buckle to the whims of the "other side".


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> I may not have come across that way, here.  But on my own blog, I have called out the mainstream media for being comprised of people who are anything but mainstream--usually, over-privileged, aloof and naive.  And one of the criticisms I had was back-pedaling on the "coons" comment.  It's what I heard.  If I'm wrong, then I am.  My other criticism with the MSM as it relates to this case, is how easily they can be bullied into making something a two-sided issue.  Weeks after Trayvon was dead and buried, they succumbed to the despicable pressure of trying to make sure that "we" all saw the not-so-innocent looking Trayvon.  And while their efforts failed, they still lost a great deal of respect.  They did not and will not do that when the next Natalie Holloway or Elizabeth Smart turns up missing.  They shouldn't have done so in this case.
> 
> As to the "facts"; yes, I reasonably relied on them to present what would or could be construed as evidence.  And if I were inclined to view Trayvon as just another dead thug, I wouldn't have even bothered. But I wanted to know what I could, without being completely reliant on the same media that I knew would ultimately do an about face, and buckle to the whims of the "other side".



What do those girls have anything to do with this case?


----------



## Wo Fat

billcihak said:


> Here is a look at the paperwork filed by the states attorney in the case.  If the article is accurate, it may be a bumpy road to the courtroom...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/walking-papers-the-incredibly-thin-speculative-zimmerman-affidavit/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is going to be a rough case in the courtroom and those who really want him convicted of "something" may be disapointed, just by looking at this article.



First, "the public" isn't entitled to a presentation of all the evidence.  Moreover, it won't be a rough case in the courtroom if the system functions as usual.


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> What do those girls have anything to do with this case?



That have to do with the context of my criticism of media.  Exemplary.  Analogous.  Comparative.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> I may not have come across that way, here.  But on my own blog, I have called out the mainstream media for being comprised of people who are anything but mainstream--usually, over-privileged, aloof and naive.


Sounds good to me I didnt know you had a blog but I agree with what you have here.  Reporters stopped being reporters and now want to be entertainers


> And one of the criticisms I had was back-pedaling on the "coons" comment.  It's what I heard.  If I'm wrong, then I am


.
Its hard to unhear something once your told what it is your supposed to hear.  I think had they just played the clip and not told you they said "Coons" and allowed you to make you own mind as to what he said you may hear it differently.  I tried to hear it for what it is without thinking coons, cold, punks, or anyhting else and I dont hear anything but garbled mess.  Once I listen to what Im told then I hear coon or cold depending on what they tell me Im supposed to hear.



> My other criticism with the MSM as it relates to this case, is how easily they can be bullied into making something a two-sided issue.  Weeks after Trayvon was dead and buried, they succumbed to the despicable pressure of trying to make sure that "we" all saw the not-so-innocent looking Trayvon.  And while their efforts failed, they still lost a great deal of respect.


I think had they not been so Bias in the fist set of pictures this would have never been an issue.  They went from one extream to the other.  They should have just found normal current pictures of both not a 12 year old kid and a guy in a orange jump suit neither of which were accurate representations of the truth.



> They did not and will not do that when the next Natalie Holloway or Elizabeth Smart turns up missing.  They shouldn't have done so in this case.


I wont deny a bias in the media when it comes to blone hair blue eyed girls.  We had a case of a missing black female here Phylicia Barnes went missing while visiting her older sister in Baltimore.  Im pretty sure that never made national news and it was a long time until we found her body.  The comparisons have been made to that story and the attention Halloway got and still gets.


----------



## Wo Fat

> I think had they not been so Bias in the fist set of pictures this would have never been an issue. They went from one extream to the other. They should have just found normal current pictures of both not a 12 year old kid and a guy in a orange jump suit neither of which were accurate representations of the truth.


_
Agree.  They could very well have used the pictures of Trayvon as a teen.  It's not like he would have looked more sinister or threatening as a 16 or 17 year old.  He just looked like most gangly and dorky kids at that age.  _


----------



## billc

The hot judge recused herself from the case...NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> The hot judge recused herself from the case...NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!




Oh billi, there is always Sarah Palin for you! :angel:


----------



## billc

She's so 2010 granfire...


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> The hot judge recused herself from the case...NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!



LOL...I saw her pic in the paper today.  Then right across from it, there was a pic of the new judge..LOL


----------



## Grenadier

Latest photos?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5Ff19njoxp

If they're real, shame on the media for not releasing them earlier.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Grenadier said:


> Latest photos?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5Ff19njoxp
> 
> If they're real, shame on the media for not releasing them earlier.



If the photo of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head are real (and I would expect they are, given the source), then that pretty much blows the theory that Zimmerman did not have his head slammed into the pavement as he claimed; unless one wants to argue that Zimmerman had the presence of mind to do that to himself after he shot Martin, but before the police arrived.  While the photo of the back of his head does not prove that he was _'reasonably in fear of his life'_, it does lend credence to his statement that he was.

Anyone want to argue that this was manufactured, faked, or that it doesn't go to Zimmerman's statement about what happened?


----------



## Wo Fat

As someone said earlier, shame on the media IF they had those photos and did not make them public.  As well, shame on whatever gov't body had them and didn't make them available before this case grew to the magnitude it did.  No, we the public weren't necessarily entitled to them.  Nor were we entitled to the emergency audio recordings other other info.

In either event, the timing of the photos are worthy of serious questions.  Do these pix exonerate Zimmerman?  No.  But if authentic in every way, they would support the fact that a physical confrontation manifested upon his contact with Trayvon.


----------



## shesulsa

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the photo of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head are real (and I would expect they are, given the source), then that pretty much blows the theory that Zimmerman did not have his head slammed into the pavement as he claimed; unless one wants to argue that Zimmerman had the presence of mind to do that to himself after he shot Martin, but before the police arrived.  While the photo of the back of his head does not prove that he was _'reasonably in fear of his life'_, it does lend credence to his statement that he was.
> 
> Anyone want to argue that this was manufactured, faked, or that it doesn't go to Zimmerman's statement about what happened?



It doesn't go against what he said logically because he said his head was bashed against the ground. What remains to be determined is if he sought out the confrontation (along with other things).


----------



## ballen0351

But but wait i was told due to crappy racist police work there were no crime scene photos and zimnerman had no injuries.  There are 30 plus pages of people saying that hmmmmm.  So maybe there are some other "Facts" out there.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> But but wait i was told due to crappy racist police work there were no crime scene photos and zimnerman had no injuries.  There are 30 plus pages of people saying that hmmmmm.  So maybe there are some other "Facts" out there.



So the Sanford PD took that photo?


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> So the Sanford PD took that photo?



Who knows but i was told there were no crime scene photos.  For all we know it may not even be Zimmermans head at all but thats the point everyone was so quick to judgement without any facts.  People were so sure a bunch of racist cops and a racist criminal justice system was at work here.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> Who knows but i was told there were no crime scene photos.  For all we know it may not even be Zimmermans head at all but thats the point everyone was so quick to judgement without any facts.  People were so sure a bunch of racist cops and a racist criminal justice system was at work here.



Given the provision of (a) the 911 non-emergency recordings; (b) the police reports; (c) the video at the police station; and whatever else has been either provided or leaked, it's a reasonable presumption that something so fundamental as a crime scene photo did not exist. 

In any event, if this particular photo is going to be trial evidence, then it will have to be authenticated.   Not always an easy task.


----------



## billc

The photo, if it is actually a photo of zimmerman would simply support what several witnesses already say.  The important part of this is who initiated the violence and that is something, at this point only zimmerman and martin know.  Since Martin is dead, I think a fair jury may have a very difficult time convicting Zimmerman of anything.


----------



## billc

Eric Zorn, a liberal columnist, takes a look at the possible timeline of events in the shooting...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/04/411.html



> But what's often overlooked in all the heated conversations about this tragedy is the actual timeline based on police documents, a timeline that culminated at 7:16:56 p.m., more than five minutes later, with the sound of a single gunshot in the background of a 911 emergency call.
> 
> There's much we still don't know about what happened in those five minutes, but we do know it was five minutes  some 90 seconds longer than in many earlier news accounts that misstated the starting time of Zimmerman's call.
> 
> And we do know that maps of the area show that Martin was only about 180 yards from home when Zimmerman told police he saw him running in that direction.



Here is a big sticking point...



> Online, the audio of this call has become to the killing of Trayvon Martin what the Zapruder film was to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy  a fragmentary record subjected to endless close analysis by those looking for clues or support for their theories.
> 
> Does Zimmerman break off the chase?
> By 7:12:15 p.m., the wind noises have stopped and his breathing has returned to normal as he discusses with the police dispatcher where responding officers should meet him. At 7:13:12 p.m. he interjects, "I don't know where this kid is."
> 
> Where _is_ Martin? At just a normal walking pace of three miles per hour, he would be home by the time Zimmerman hangs up with police at 7:13:41 p.m.
> 
> He isn't. In fact, the fatal altercation between Zimmerman and Martin takes place only about 80 yards from Zimmerman's vehicle  100 yards from the home where Martin was staying. And the first 911 emergency calls from neighbors reporting their fight don't come in until 7:16:11 p.m., 21/2 minutes after Zimmerman hung up.
> 
> So what? Well, it's very difficult to reconcile all this with the popular, outraged contention, as voiced by Rep. Frederica Wilson D-Fla., that Martin "was hunted down like a dog," stalked and overtaken by an officious, gun-toting racist.





> The yawning gaps in the timeline strongly suggest that this is not a simple story of predator and prey, or of a noble neighborhood hero demonized and facing second-degree murder charges simply for doing the right thing.
> 
> It's a reminder that there's a lot we still don't know about the five minutes between "he's running" and the horrible sound of gunfire.  It indicates that the victim as well as the accused made some terrible choices that night.
> 
> And it tells us to keep our minds open and our tempers in check, at least until some of those gaps get filled at Zimmerman's trial


.


----------



## Wo Fat

billcihak said:


> Eric Zorn, a liberal columnist, takes a look at the possible timeline of events in the shooting...
> 
> http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/04/411.html
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a big sticking point...



Back to the photo for a moment.  Looking at this possible timeline, it suggests that the fatal shot came at 7:16.  The Sanford Police Report shows the first officer arriving on scene at 7:17.  

The photographer claims to have taken the photo of Zimmerman three minutes after the shooting--or 7:19.  The photographer also suggests that he conversed with Zimmerman.  

Is this photographer a Sanford Police employee or agent?  If so, why is ABC representing that it was taken by someone other than Sanford PD?  If this photographer is a private citizen, how is it that he or she was allowed access not only to the crime scene (Sanford PD was already on scene) but allowed to speak with Zimmerman?


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> But but wait i was told due to crappy racist police work there were no crime scene photos and zimnerman had no injuries.  There are 30 plus pages of people saying that hmmmmm.  So maybe there are some other "Facts" out there.



I can't believe that nobody would take photos, and if in fact that is the case, then someone really dropped the ball, and no doubt, the lawyers will have a huge field day with this.


----------



## Wo Fat

MJS said:


> I can't believe that nobody would take photos, and if in fact that is the case, then someone really dropped the ball, and no doubt, the lawyers will have a huge field day with this.



Which begs the question:  will the prosecution throw the Sanford PD under the bus, if in fact, they did not take any photos of the crime scene (which should have included Zimmerman)?


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Which begs the question:  will the prosecution throw the Sanford PD under the bus, if in fact, they did not take any photos of the crime scene (which should have included Zimmerman)?



You keep implying they didnt.  How do you knw what they did or didnt do.  Taking pics is police 101 when you show up to a homicide if they didnt the Prosecution should throw them under the bus


----------



## MJS

Wo Fat said:


> Which begs the question:  will the prosecution throw the Sanford PD under the bus, if in fact, they did not take any photos of the crime scene (which should have included Zimmerman)?



I'm sure they will.  In fact, I'd wager a good guess that alot of the cases we see get tossed, alot of the bad guys that walk, end up doing so, because of poor police work.


----------



## MJS

And in other news:
http://news.yahoo.com/md-neighborhood-watch-trial-set-against-fla-fury-140920015.html



> BALTIMORE (AP)  Two brothers accused of beating a black teenager while patrolling an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood are set to go on trial Monday in a case with similarities to the Trayvon Martin shooting.
> The brothers, who are white and Jewish, have claimed self-defense, saying the teen was holding a nail-studded board. Local civil rights activists hope the Martin case will draw more attention to what they believe was racial profiling by neighborhood watch vigilantes.
> Eliyahu and Avi Werdesheim are accused of beating a 15-year-old boy who was walking through a Baltimore neighborhood in November 2010. The brothers pulled up next to the teen in a vehicle, then got out and "surrounded him," according to charging documents. The passenger threw the teen to the ground and the driver hit him in the head with a hand-held radio and patted him down.
> 
> The teen remembered the driver yelling, "You wanna (mess) with us, you don't belong around here, get outta here!" according to court documents, which do not identify which brother was driving.
> While the teen struggled, a third man got out of a van and kneed the teen, pinning him to the ground. The teen told police that he stopped struggling and the third man continued to search him, while the teen insisted he didn't have anything on him.
> Eliyahu Werdesheim told the Baltimore Jewish Times that he was acting in self-defense because the teen was holding the piece of wood. The teen picked up the board during the encounter, but put it back down, said J. Wyndal Gordon, an attorney for the teen's family. He said the family did not want to speak publically.
> 
> After the trio left, the teen called police and was taken to a hospital with a cut on the back of his head and a broken wrist, according to court documents. Using a photo book compiled by investigators, the teen later identified Eliyahu Werdesheim, now 24, as one of the men who assaulted him. He was arrested after about 10 days; his now 21-year-old brother was charged two months later.
> The brothers are charged with second-degree assault, false imprisonment and carrying a deadly weapon (the hand-held radio). The pair face up to 13 years in prison if convicted on all three counts. A third man, identified in a lawsuit brought by the teen's family as Ronald Rosenbluth, does not face charges.
> 
> Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said investigators don't believe Rosenbluth was involved in the beating. Rosenbluth said he doesn't believe there was a third person and he was only called to the scene after the incident.
> Law enforcement officials emphasize that neighborhood watchers' responsibility is to report crime, and leave interventions to police. Most follow the rules, and confrontations are rare.
> "We owe a lot of our success to communities that have stepped up and partnered with police. They help us out," Guglielmi said. "But when they step too far, we have to hold people accountable."
> In the Florida case, authorities charged neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman this month with second-degree murder in Martin's death Feb. 26. Zimmerman claims self-defense, but Martin's family claims he targeted Martin mainly because he was black. Zimmerman's father is white and his mother Hispanic.
> It's unusual to have a trial in which the allegations mirror a case so prominent in the news, said Steven Levin, a former federal prosecutor.
> 
> "Since the Trayvon Martin case, people cannot help but think about that case and draw comparisons, whether they are fair or not," he said.
> In the Werdesheim case, the six trial postponements could significantly hinder the defense's case, Levin said. However, the charges against Zimmerman since the last postponement may mean jurors won't feel that they need to somehow set things right through the case they are deciding.
> Eliyahu Werdesheim was suspended from the neighborhood group while Avi was never a member, according to Nathan Willner, general counsel for Shomrim of Baltimore, a group that patrols neighborhoods with a large concentration of Jewish residents and institutions in the Baltimore area. Shomrim, which is Hebrew for guard, has about 30 volunteer, unarmed responders. It was founded in 2005 to provide security and gather information for police, Willner said.
> While the case has not garnered the attention the Martin shooting has, Cortly C.D. Witherspoon, president of the local chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, has organized protests outside the courthouse during court hearings and has been frustrated by the postponements.
> 
> "We feel that justice should have been served long ago. I would contend that the urgency for justice (in this case) is affected by the Trayvon Martin case because of the similarities," he said.
> Members of the area's Jewish community also rallied outside the courthouse when the brothers appeared in court to enter not guilty pleas in February. Jakob Lurman, the owner of a barbershop, was among them.
> "I have a business in the community. Shomrim do good work," Lurman said. "I don't know what happened in that case, but I wanted to show support."
> Jewish neighborhood watch groups in New York City have faced accusations of unnecessary force against blacks, creating tensions between the Jewish and black communities. That hasn't yet happened in Baltimore, according to the Rev. Alvin Gwynn Sr., president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance. The organization of predominantly black clergy met with leaders of the area's Jewish community to keep relationships between the two communities strong.
> "We were already working with them when this came up," Gwynn said. "It hasn't done much damage yet."
> Baltimore is a city that's 64 percent black, and the jury will likely have eight or nine black members. So race will be a factor, said University of Baltimore School of Law professor and practicing attorney Byron Warnken.
> "What the defense has to do is completely downplay that," he said, and show the force was necessary to prevent a crime.
> Susan Green, an attorney for Avi Werdesheim, said last month that she hoped the media coverage would not create an atmosphere that would make it difficult for her client, but declined to comment further. The attorney for Eliyahu Werdesheim did not return calls for comment.



Now, reading this, I'd say its very similar to the TM/GZ case, as we have the typical watch group yahoo wanna be cops.  We have a black youth.  We have people in this case that clearly stepped overboard, if in fact they did what the article claims.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> Now, reading this, I'd say its very similar to the TM/GZ case, as we have the typical watch group yahoo wanna be cops.  We have a black youth.  We have people in this case that clearly stepped overboard, if in fact they did what the article claims.



I agree that the 'watch group' that allegedly did this needs to be arrested, as they have been, and prosecuted, as it appears they will be.  I disagree that 'typical watch groups' are 'yahoos' or 'wanna be cops'.  I've lived in many places in the USA over the years.  I've lived in many neighborhoods that had an organized "Neighborhood Watch."  I've never seen one that had more than a list of phone numbers, a designated Watch Captain or Block Commander, and semi-regular meetings to discuss issues in the neighborhood.  I think your description of Neighborhood Watch groups is WAY overblown and flat-out wrong.  I've never been a member of a Neighborhood Watch group; but seriously?  They're not only *not* wanna-be cops, they're not even that much interested in 'patrolling' unless there is some active threat in the neighborhood like recent burglaries.


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that the 'watch group' that allegedly did this needs to be arrested, as they have been, and prosecuted, as it appears they will be.  I disagree that 'typical watch groups' are 'yahoos' or 'wanna be cops'.  I've lived in many places in the USA over the years.  I've lived in many neighborhoods that had an organized "Neighborhood Watch."  I've never seen one that had more than a list of phone numbers, a designated Watch Captain or Block Commander, and semi-regular meetings to discuss issues in the neighborhood.  I think your description of Neighborhood Watch groups is WAY overblown and flat-out wrong.  I've never been a member of a Neighborhood Watch group; but seriously?  They're not only *not* wanna-be cops, they're not even that much interested in 'patrolling' unless there is some active threat in the neighborhood like recent burglaries.



Well you hit the nail on the head when you said 'organized.'  My point was simply that in the GZ case, and this one that I just linked, we had people who, IMO, took their 'job' a bit too serious.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Well you hit the nail on the head when you said 'organized.'  My point was simply that in the GZ case, and this one that I just linked, we had people who, IMO, took their 'job' a bit too serious.



And if you lived in Bodymore Murderland as the locals like to call it you would know why they need neighborhood watch groups


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> Well you hit the nail on the head when you said 'organized.'  My point was simply that in the GZ case, and this one that I just linked, we had people who, IMO, took their 'job' a bit too serious.



In the GZ case, I don't know.  In the case you linked to, could be, but again, I don't know.  But you seemed to me to be implying that this went along with the territory with NW groups, and I don't agree.  I have seen (and worked with) a lot of wanna-be cops in my life, and most of them wore private security guard uniforms.  They get a uniform, a badge, and a gun; many of them think it's a step along the way towards being a real LEO (and it can be for a very select few) and many of them think they *are* cops at that point.  NW?  You don't even get a piece of paper saying you're in it.  Your name is just on a piece of paper somewhere.  You don't carry weapons, no badges, no uniforms, and most don't even have portable radios, just their own cell phones to call each other or 911.  I don't think they are deluded into thinking anyone has to respect their aww-thor-it-tay.

I will say this at the risk of making someone angry; I have been in several ultra-orthodox Jewish communities in the US where anyone who was not ultra-orthodox was extremely unwelcome and made to understand that they needed to leave immediately.  Not a black/white thing, a Jewish thing, and ultra-orthodox at that.  I've take a wrong turn in a couple cities when I used to travel for a living an found myself in neighborhoods where it was pretty clear I was going to be harmed if I did not vacate immediately, and it *was* because I was white.  I'm sure the opposite exists also; but since I am white, I've never experienced that.

I tried to check into a hotel near Mexican Water, Arizona, late one night (it's on Apache Nation land) and was told flat-out by the desk clerk that _"You in the wrong place, bro." _ I left.

Racism exists.  All kinds.  People who live in enclaves of like-minded individuals might try to keep others out, or harm those that come in who are not like themselves.  I think that's just racism (or bigotry) and doesn't have to be put on Neighborhood Watch groups.  I don't think NW is endemically racist, or made up of wanna-be cops.  I've worked with enough wanna-be cops to be able to recognize them.


----------



## granfire

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that the 'watch group' that allegedly did this needs to be arrested, as they have been, and prosecuted, as it appears they will be.  I disagree that 'typical watch groups' are 'yahoos' or 'wanna be cops'.  I've lived in many places in the USA over the years.  I've lived in many neighborhoods that had an organized "Neighborhood Watch."  I've never seen one that had more than a list of phone numbers, a designated Watch Captain or Block Commander, and semi-regular meetings to discuss issues in the neighborhood.  I think your description of Neighborhood Watch groups is WAY overblown and flat-out wrong.  I've never been a member of a Neighborhood Watch group; but seriously?  They're not only *not* wanna-be cops, they're not even that much interested in 'patrolling' unless there is some active threat in the neighborhood like recent burglaries.




well, a string of crimes usually is what gives birth to NW groups.
Once the thread subsides, so do the patrols...unless of course the dog still needs walking in the evening...


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the GZ case, I don't know.  In the case you linked to, could be, but again, I don't know.  But you seemed to me to be implying that this went along with the territory with NW groups, and I don't agree.  I have seen (and worked with) a lot of wanna-be cops in my life, and most of them wore private security guard uniforms.  They get a uniform, a badge, and a gun; many of them think it's a step along the way towards being a real LEO (and it can be for a very select few) and many of them think they *are* cops at that point.  NW?  You don't even get a piece of paper saying you're in it.  Your name is just on a piece of paper somewhere.  You don't carry weapons, no badges, no uniforms, and most don't even have portable radios, just their own cell phones to call each other or 911.  I don't think they are deluded into thinking anyone has to respect their aww-thor-it-tay.



For the same reason that some that choose to become LEOs, let it go to their head.  That badge and gun, somehow, in 'their' eyes, gives them this power, this feeling, this assumption, that they're better than everyone.  I've seen it as you have, I'm sure.  Oddly enough, you say that NW groups dont carry weapons, radios, etc., yet in the GZ case, he had a gun.  In the other case I linked, they had radios.  

I've seen vol. firefighters do the same thing.  Install lights that're not allowed under their vol. status, as well as other violations.  Its a power trip.  Its the wanna be mentality, because despite how hard they try, they just can't get the 'real deal' so they settle for the next best thing. 



> I will say this at the risk of making someone angry; I have been in several ultra-orthodox Jewish communities in the US where anyone who was not ultra-orthodox was extremely unwelcome and made to understand that they needed to leave immediately.  Not a black/white thing, a Jewish thing, and ultra-orthodox at that.  I've take a wrong turn in a couple cities when I used to travel for a living an found myself in neighborhoods where it was pretty clear I was going to be harmed if I did not vacate immediately, and it *was* because I was white.  I'm sure the opposite exists also; but since I am white, I've never experienced that.
> 
> I tried to check into a hotel near Mexican Water, Arizona, late one night (it's on Apache Nation land) and was told flat-out by the desk clerk that _"You in the wrong place, bro." _ I left.
> 
> Racism exists.  All kinds.  People who live in enclaves of like-minded individuals might try to keep others out, or harm those that come in who are not like themselves.  I think that's just racism (or bigotry) and doesn't have to be put on Neighborhood Watch groups.  I don't think NW is endemically racist, or made up of wanna-be cops.  I've worked with enough wanna-be cops to be able to recognize them.



I'd bet dollars to donuts that were the situation reversed, and it was a bunch of white people, members of some racist group, and a bunch of ultra orthadox Jewish people came into the area and were treated as you described, all hell would break loose.  You're right...racism does exist.  Despite some posts here, I can't help but think that in these 2 cases, it played a large part that we either think or that some want to think.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

MJS said:


> For the same reason that some that choose to become LEOs, let it go to their head.  That badge and gun, somehow, in 'their' eyes, gives them this power, this feeling, this assumption, that they're better than everyone.  I've seen it as you have, I'm sure.  Oddly enough, you say that NW groups dont carry weapons, radios, etc., yet in the GZ case, he had a gun.  In the other case I linked, they had radios.
> 
> I've seen vol. firefighters do the same thing.  Install lights that're not allowed under their vol. status, as well as other violations.  Its a power trip.  Its the wanna be mentality, because despite how hard they try, they just can't get the 'real deal' so they settle for the next best thing.
> 
> I'd bet dollars to donuts that were the situation reversed, and it was a bunch of white people, members of some racist group, and a bunch of ultra orthadox Jewish people came into the area and were treated as you described, all hell would break loose.  You're right...racism does exist.  Despite some posts here, I can't help but think that in these 2 cases, it played a large part that we either think or that some want to think.



I don't disagree with what you're saying, *except* that I am not tying it to Neighborhood Watch; I just don't see the link.  GZ was a CCW permit holder.  That doesn't mean that most NW groups go about armed, or that anyone else on his NW was typically armed.  As to whether or not we was a 'wanna be' cop, again, I just don't have enough information to see that; it could be true, or not.  But again, even if GZ is a 'wanna be' cop, that doesn't make NW full of wanna-be cops.  Same if he turns out to be a racist.  Does it make NW members racist?  I don't see the connection you see to be wanting to draw.  GZ was a NW member.  He was also X, Y, and Z, and he might have been A, B, and C.  But those attributes (fill in the blank) just don't necessarily MEAN anything with regard to NW.  If I meet a bunch of NW members who are tall, shall I imply that NW members are all tall?  Or that they're all men?  Or all of mixed white/hispanic ancestry?  See, just because GZ was a CCW holder doesn't have any meaning with regard to his NW membership that I can see.  Unless you have some kind of data on the bloodthirsty NW wanna-be cops getting arrested left, right, and center.  I see your other post, but that's ONE other situation.  How many NW groups are there?  More than two, I'm guessing.

If I'm mistaken about you trying to tie whatever GZ is or is not (racist, wanna-be cop, etc) to NW in general, forgive me, but that's what I'm getting from this and I just don't see it that way.


----------



## Wo Fat

Implicit in these kinds of neighborhood watch/wannabe cop scenarios--and particularly when violence manifests--is that the person who is "suspected" of wrongdoing, is expected to somehow submit to a perceived authority; authority that usually only exists in the mind of the wannabe ranger.  When the "suspect" does not assume the expected subordinate role (and instead offers up a "who the eff are you?") the situation quickly escalates.  No surprise that violence ensues.  

People will continue to suspect, profile, stereotype, etc., without justification.  But it's not their right to do so, and there need to be serious criminal justice consequences when they do.


----------



## billc

Some interesting thoughts on the girlfreind's claims about her last conversation with Martin...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/dee-dee_trayvon_and_dj.html




> As for the final words Dee-Dee reported hearing:
> 
> 1.   They don't sound anything like the immediate prelude to a fight.  Two  questions are asked:  Why are you following me? and What are you doing  here?  Without knowing anything about the individuals who asked them,  it's difficult to believe these words would provoke a fight without any  further exchanges.
> 2.   Zimmerman had called the police 5 minutes earlier.  He expected an  officer to arrive at any moment.  The last thing he wanted to do is get  into a fight with the guy he's called them about.  If he got out of his  truck a second time -- and this seems to be the key piece of evidence in  the prosecutor's case -- common sense says that he was attempting to  locate the suspicious stranger so he could point the officer in the  right direction.
> 3.   Among the six individuals making 911 calls, at least one reported  hearing an argument before the fight broke out.  The woman's account was  presented as a rebuttal to the eyewitness who had seen Martin on top,  beating Zimmerman.  Unfortunately, she had seen nothing.  But she did  hear loud voices, that of a "man," deeper and more aggressive, and a  quieter "boy."  There was not merely an exchange of questions.
> 4.   What does pushing sound like?  Even the media does not insist that the  fight began with Zimmerman pushing Martin, though this now seems to be  widely believed.
> 5.   If Zimmerman did in fact ask Martin what he was doing here, there was a  perfectly good answer: "I happen to be staying with my dad and his  girlfriend, a**hole."  And he could have given the address.  This was  not how Martin responded.
> 6.   You have every right to approach a suspicious stranger walking in your  community and ask him what he's doing there.  This is not chasing or  stalking.  The stranger in this case was 6' 2" or 6' 3" and weighed  about 160 pounds.  It was a little after 7 p.m. in a gated community.   If he was simply returning from an errand (though we know now he was not),  he had no reason to be frightened.  Perhaps the little twelve-year-old  in the hoodie might have been scared, but it says something about the  veracity of Dee-Dee's story that it needs this dishonest illustration to  make it stick.
> So  what did happen in the final moments before the fight?  According to  Zimmerman, he was headed back to his truck for the second time when he  was surprised by Martin, who was waiting for him between two buildings.   The teenager said, "Do you have a ********** problem?," and when Zimmerman  replied "no," said, "You do now," and decked him.  Zimmerman told  police that he reached for his cell as he said "no."


 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/dee-dee_trayvon_and_dj.html#ixzz1ssfe9FqL
​


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Implicit in these kinds of neighborhood watch/wannabe cop scenarios--and particularly when violence manifests--is that the person who is "suspected" of wrongdoing, is expected to somehow submit to a perceived authority; authority that usually only exists in the mind of the wannabe ranger.  When the "suspect" does not assume the expected subordinate role (and instead offers up a "who the eff are you?")


and the one "suspected" of wrongdoing when questioned still does not have the right to attack over being asked a question or even being followed.  If your that frightened why not  call 911 or RUN and yell for help.  




> People will continue to suspect, profile, stereotype, etc., without justification.  But it's not their right to do so, and there need to be serious criminal justice consequences when they do.


OR people could see strangers in their neighborhood and decide to follow them regardless of race simply because they know who lives in there neighborhood and who does not.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> and the one "suspected" of wrongdoing when questioned still does not have the right to attack over being asked a question or even being followed.  If your that frightened why not  call 911 or RUN and yell for help.



Again, the one who "thinks" he has the authority to "question" me, really doesn't.  




> OR people could see strangers in their neighborhood and decide to follow them regardless of race simply because they know who lives in there neighborhood and who does not.



I see "strangers" in my very nice neighborhood quite often.  I have no authority to expect them to stop and be questioned by me.  And if I think I have that kind of right and authority, then I do so at my (and possibly someone else's) risk of safety.


----------



## Wo Fat

> _5. If Zimmerman did in fact ask Martin what he was doing here, there was a perfectly good answer: "I happen to be staying with my dad and his girlfriend, a**hole." And he could have given the address. This was not how Martin responded. _



Well, nobody writes my script.  And they're mortal fools to expect to.

Again, these a**holes with their superiority complexes.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Again, the one who "thinks" he has the authority to "question" me, really doesn't.


So what?  I was questioned all the time when I was undercover by people wanting to know why I was in there neighborhood or what I was doing there.  Why?  Because I was a white guy in a black neighborhood.  Only 2 reasons I would be there Im a Cop or looking for drugs.  Well I didnt look like a cop so I was often approchaed and told to leave the area by concerned citizens who wanted to clean up there neighborhood.  People that wanted the crime to stop.  so again I ask SO WHAT who cares if someone "dares" question you.  You either answer or you dont big deal.  You dont then fine keep on walking. 






> I see "strangers" in my very nice neighborhood quite often.  I have no authority to expect them to stop and be questioned by me.  And if I think I have that kind of right and authority, then I do so at my (and possibly someone else's) risk of safety.


You dont need any authority to have pride in your neighborhood and check people out that dont look familiar.  Nobody says you need to question anyone but some people know they cant sit back and wait for the police.  Police are generally reactive not proactive we cant be at all places at all times so its your neighborhood your responsibility.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Well, nobody writes my script.  And they're mortal fools to expect to.
> 
> Again, these a**holes with their superiority complexes.


And its attitudes like this that caused this situation in the first place.  Everyone is so worried about being disrespected, or how dare "you" talk to me or How are "You" not answer my questions.  IF everyone would tone it down a bit with the macho man contest and actually talk to each other this would have never happened.  
Zimmerman:  excuse me sir neighborhood watch why are you here?
Martin:  Im staying with my dad at 123 main st.
Zimmerman:  Ok just checking we have had some problems inthe area.
Martin:  Ok

Alot less blood shed then the alternative.

I get so sick of the you cant talk to me, you better answer me, mines bigger then yours games.  When did we stop being people and talking to each other like humans and move into the ME ME ME ME ME you cant disrespect me BLAH BLAH BLAH get over yourselves you might live longer.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> So what?  I was questioned all the time when I was undercover by people wanting to know why I was in there neighborhood or what I was doing there.  Why?  Because I was a white guy in a black neighborhood.  Only 2 reasons I would be there Im a Cop or looking for drugs.  Well I didnt look like a cop so I was often approchaed and told to leave the area by concerned citizens who wanted to clean up there neighborhood.  People that wanted the crime to stop.  so again I ask SO WHAT who cares if someone "dares" question you.  You either answer or you dont big deal.  You dont then fine keep on walking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont need any authority to have pride in your neighborhood and check people out that dont look familiar.  Nobody says you need to question anyone but some people know they cant sit back and wait for the police.  Police are generally reactive not proactive we cant be at all places at all times so its your neighborhood your responsibility.



We're belaboring the point.  High crime, low crime, no crime; "I" don't owe "you" an explanation of my presence.  In any neighborhood.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> We're belaboring the point.  High crime, low crime, no crime; "I" don't owe "you" an explanation of my presence.  In any neighborhood.



Thanks for proving my point above

Im not saying you owe anyone anything but why are you so important you dont feel like you need to talk to someone thats concerned about the safety of their neighborhood?

what harm comes from answering a simple question?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

This is what I'm seeing a lot of here:

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



> *Affirming the consequent*, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:
> 
> If P, then Q.
> Q.
> Therefore, P.
> 
> An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
> 
> The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.
> [edit] Examples
> 
> One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:
> 
> If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
> Bill Gates is rich.
> Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
> 
> Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. There are any number of other ways to be rich.



Zimmerman was armed.
Zimmerman was a member of Neighborhood Watch.
Therefore, Neighborhood Watch members are armed.

Zimmerman is not black and Martin is black.
Racism is hatred based on differing skin color.
Therefore, Zimmerman is racist.

Zimmerman was armed.
Cops are armed.
Therefore, Zimmerman thought he was a cop.

Neighborhood Watch members patrol their neighborhoods.
Police patrol neighborhoods.
Therefore, Neighborhood Watch members think they are police officers.

These logical fallacies MIGHT be true, or they MIGHT be false.  Nothing stated proves either; and nothing stated above gives anyone a logical reason to believe one over the other.

It would be JUST as logical for me to say that Cops are armed and Neighborhood Watch members are armed, therefore cops think they are Neighborhood Watch members.  It would be JUST as logical to say Zimmerman was not black and Martin is black, therefore Martin was a racist.  It would be just as logical to say that Neighborhood Watch members are generally not armed, Zimmerman was a member of Neighborhood Watch, therefore Zimmerman was not armed (clearly false, but not false based on the statement, false because of the reality revealed by his shooting Martin).

If you've come to a decision regarding Zimmerman, and you base it on to unrelated facts which you have decided represent a logical conclusion, you're not being logical.  You may be correct about your assumption, but it is just that, an assumption based on your own opinion; it is not based on logic.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> We're belaboring the point.  High crime, low crime, no crime; "I" don't owe "you" an explanation of my presence.  In any neighborhood.



No, you don't.  But anybody can also say "Hi; I don't know you, do you live around here?" or even "why are you in my neighborhood?"  They may not be able to compel an answer or detain the person -- but they may indeed ask.  If you don't like the answer, or they're uncooperative and you're now even more suspicious, then call the cops.  Interestingly enough, generally, a cop can't do anything more, either, unless and until they develop a reasonable, articulable suspicion.

By the way -- in my experience, both on and off the clock, I've found a couple typical reactions.  People in the neighborhood are generally happy to be "checked out" since it means that there's a good chance they won't be a victim.  People with legitimate business in the area explain themselves.  (OK; that one burned me once.  I was doing surveillance, and parked next to a house for sale, giving me an easy explanation of "I'm waiting for the realtor..."  Except the person who confronted me was either the realtor or the homeowner... and they knew that nobody should have been coming by.)  People up to no good get defensive real fast... and they either leave abruptly, or get confrontational.    One caveat:  this is with a polite, friendly inquiry, not a confrontational "Hey, what the hell are you doing walking down my street!?"  Also -- teenagers react more unpredictably, especially in a group.  Alone -- you generally get a response as described previously.  In a group?  You may get a group monkey dance response as if they were wrong, even if they're doing nothing wrong.


----------



## granfire

and you can't jump somebody for asking you why you are in their neck of the woods - or hood...


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> ...*why are you so important* you dont feel like you need to talk to someone thats concerned about the safety of their neighborhood?



If you even have to ask "_why am I so important_", you couldn't possibly comprehend the answer.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> If you even have to ask "_why am I so important_", you couldn't possibly comprehend the answer.



Yes because your so important how dare anyone even gaze upon you.   How is a question so offensive.  Sir neighborhood watch ive never seen you around here before you lost?  You need any assistance?  If thats somehow to much for someobe to ask you then you have some issues.  Not to many people love themselves as much as me but i could care less if someone asks me a few questions when im walking around.  I have nothing to prove by puffing out my chest and telling them they have no authority over me. Maybe thats just me but little stuff like that does not bother me


----------



## MJS

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't disagree with what you're saying, *except* that I am not tying it to Neighborhood Watch; I just don't see the link. GZ was a CCW permit holder. That doesn't mean that most NW groups go about armed, or that anyone else on his NW was typically armed. As to whether or not we was a 'wanna be' cop, again, I just don't have enough information to see that; it could be true, or not. But again, even if GZ is a 'wanna be' cop, that doesn't make NW full of wanna-be cops. Same if he turns out to be a racist. Does it make NW members racist? I don't see the connection you see to be wanting to draw. GZ was a NW member. He was also X, Y, and Z, and he might have been A, B, and C. But those attributes (fill in the blank) just don't necessarily MEAN anything with regard to NW. If I meet a bunch of NW members who are tall, shall I imply that NW members are all tall? Or that they're all men? Or all of mixed white/hispanic ancestry? See, just because GZ was a CCW holder doesn't have any meaning with regard to his NW membership that I can see. Unless you have some kind of data on the bloodthirsty NW wanna-be cops getting arrested left, right, and center. I see your other post, but that's ONE other situation. How many NW groups are there? More than two, I'm guessing.
> 
> If I'm mistaken about you trying to tie whatever GZ is or is not (racist, wanna-be cop, etc) to NW in general, forgive me, but that's what I'm getting from this and I just don't see it that way.



Hey Bill,

Sorry for the delayed reply.  Now that I'm home, rather than at work, I can try to clarify myself. 

1) Regarding the CCW permit.  Forgive me if this was already discussed, but did we establish whether or not GZ had the gun concealed right up until he was supposedly attacked by Martin or was he walking down the street with it out?  I ask this, because IMO, if you're going to take it out, then regardless of the SYG or any other law, I feel that you damn well better be justified in using it.  I mean, we're not in the wild west anymore, and furthermore the courts apparently felt that GZ was in the wrong, otherwise the probably wouldn't have charged him with murder.

2) Many times on here, when people start talking about bad cops, I've said that yes, there are bad apples in the bunch, but by no means, if every cop bad.  The same with the NW groups, security guards, etc.  However, I think you and I both know that those 'wanna be's' do exist.  IMHO, moreso in the 2nd case I linked, those guys seemed to go seriously overboard.  

3) How many NW groups are there?  No idea. I've seen signs posted on certain streets, that this is a NW area.  However, I've never seen people patrolling.  Hey, by all means, if someone wants to do something for their neighborhood, knock your socks off.  Hell, I've taken countless calls from folks, who've looked out their window, and saw something suspicious, a burg in progress, and many times, those people are responsible for the badguys getting caught.  But, IMO, you gotta know where to draw the line.  I mean, you yourself, have said that in certain SD situations, its better to comply first, rather than go in with guns blazing.  Same thing can apply here.  Instead of taking it upon yourself, as a citizen, a non LEO, to chase after, confront, etc, a suspicious person, observe from a safe distance.  If I was going to follow someone, I'd rather do so from my vehicle, rather than on foot.  At least if things started going south, I'd be able to hopefully get the hell out of dodge faster.

Hopefully this clarified my stance.  Feel free to give your comments.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> Yes because your so important how dare anyone even gaze upon you.   How is a question so offensive.  Sir neighborhood watch ive never seen you around here before you lost?  You need any assistance?  If thats somehow to much for someobe to ask you then you have some issues.  Not to many people love themselves as much as me but i could care less if someone asks me a few questions when im walking around.  I have nothing to prove by puffing out my chest and telling them they have no authority over me. Maybe thats just me but little stuff like that does not bother me



I don't expect you to agree with my point of view, here.  There are plenty of grown men, law abiding citizens who have paid their life's dues and who know that they are well within their business to walk down the street of their neighborhood or someone else's, without having to account for themselves--regardless of the BS pretext of "are you lost, sir".  Because at that point, both men know two things: (1) he ain't "lost"; and (2) he's been singled out as possibly not belonging where he has a right to be.  

Now, just because you will accept that, doesn't mean that I will.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> I don't expect you to agree with my point of view, here.


Its not that I dont agree I just dont understand it.  I dont understand why it bothers you for someone to ask you a few simple questions.


> There are plenty of grown men, law abiding citizens who have paid their life's dues and who know that they are well within their business to walk down the street of their neighborhood or someone else's, without having to account for themselves


-
And the same hard working law abiding citizens hat have paid their life's due who are well with in their business to want to know why a stranger is walking thru their neighborhood.  


> -regardless of the BS pretext of "are you lost, sir".  Because at that point, both men know two things: (1) he ain't "lost"; and (2) he's been singled out as possibly not belonging where he has a right to be.


Again I dont understand what the big deal is you know your in a neighborhood your not from so there is a chance someone may want to know why your there esp. if there has been crime in that area.  



> Now, just because you will accept that, doesn't mean that I will.



I accept that sometimes its better to be polite and avoid a fight or the police being called by respecting someone elses neighborhood im in and if Im asked a simple question ill answer and go about my business. If Im in my own neighborhood Ill use it as a chance to meet a neighbor I have not met yet.

I guess I dont get the hostility towards someone thats concerend about their neighborhood.  I wish more people actually gave a crap about where they lived.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> Its not that I dont agree I just dont understand ...



_*"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- *_Benjamin Franklin

It's hard for one man to understand another man's hostility toward giving up liberties and freedoms.  And in the case of a so-called neighborhood watch, we aren't talking about the context of someone being lost or needing directions.  We are talking about a crime context.  Again; that's where the contact _begins_--in a crime/safety context.  One man (usually Joe Watchdog) expects the "stranger" to capitulate to fears of criminality.  The man who's minding his own business, expects to be secure in his freedom from criminal suspicion.  

Cops are accustomed to people obeying their orders.  They're accustomed to hoodlums, criminals and soon-to-be criminals acting as such.  Night watchmen and wannabe cops, in too many cases, seem to expect that same level of obedience.  Usually because they assume they are dealing with the criminal usual suspect.  My responsibility as a man, is not to capitulate to what some see as everyday-normal.  My responsibility is not to obey you just because your life experience suggests it.  

And if my indignance is so offensive to you that the situation rises to a violent one, then it also becomes a matter of how much I value my real freedom vs. your perceived authority.


----------



## ballen0351

you have no freedom from being questioned.  I can approach anyone i want for any reason and ask them a question.  You dont need to answer but i can still ask.  I guess i look at things differently i dont see every person that asks me a question as some power hungry authoritarian out to restrict my freedoms.  I also dont loose any freedom by answering a simple question.  Why you here?  Im cutting thru to my house over on main st.  And id keep on walking he wants to follow me good i dont care.  He wants to call the police fine call them i dont care.  Like i said before when i was under cover i was questioned by residents of areas i was parked in i didnt get defensive or pissed about what authority they have to question me.  I thought it was good to see people taking pride in there neighborhood


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> you have no freedom from being questioned.  I can approach anyone i want for any reason and ask them a question.  You dont need to answer but i can still ask.  I guess i look at things differently i dont see every person that asks me a question as some power hungry authoritarian out to restrict my freedoms.  I also dont loose any freedom by answering a simple question.  Why you here?  Im cutting thru to my house over on main st.  And id keep on walking he wants to follow me good i dont care.  He wants to call the police fine call them i dont care.  Like i said before when i was under cover i was questioned by residents of areas i was parked in i didnt get defensive or pissed about what authority they have to question me.  I thought it was good to see people taking pride in there neighborhood



on a side note...

what _did _you tell them when they wanted to know why you were in the hood?
I mean, telling them you want to score dope would not work, or that you are a copper.... :lol: 

But *Wo Fat*, you have the freedom from getting your crib tossed by the government and it various arms.
There is no freedom from criminal suspicion. When you look out of place, you look out of place and why somebody thinks you do, well, tough luck, you do to them.


----------



## punisher73

Wo Fat said:


> _*"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- *_Benjamin Franklin
> 
> It's hard for one man to understand another man's hostility toward giving up liberties and freedoms. And in the case of a so-called neighborhood watch, we aren't talking about the context of someone being lost or needing directions. We are talking about a crime context. Again; that's where the contact _begins_--in a crime/safety context. One man (usually Joe Watchdog) expects the "stranger" to capitulate to fears of criminality. The man who's minding his own business, expects to be secure in his freedom from criminal suspicion.
> 
> Cops are accustomed to people obeying their orders. They're accustomed to hoodlums, criminals and soon-to-be criminals acting as such. Night watchmen and wannabe cops, in too many cases, seem to expect that same level of obedience. Usually because they assume they are dealing with the criminal usual suspect. My responsibility as a man, is not to capitulate to what some see as everyday-normal. My responsibility is not to obey you just because your life experience suggests it.
> 
> And if my indignance is so offensive to you that the situation rises to a violent one, then it also becomes a matter of how much I value my real freedom vs. your perceived authority.



Way to misquote a founding father.  No one is "giving up" an essential liberty.  I guarantee you, in Mr. Franklin's time if someone was walking around on their property who they didn't know, they would be asking questions.  I have been asked to look after our neighbor's house on many occasions and have asked the same of him.  There was a time when someone came over to my house and he started asking questions because he knew we were gone and no one should be there.  My friend that was over got mad and told me about it, and I informed them that my neighbor was doing exactly what I asked him to do.  Neighborhood watches are the same thing, if someone is walking around that hasn't been seen before at a time when most people aren't out and they are looking around as if lost and/or up to no good, I would EXPECT the NW to ask a few questions.

I'm so sick of selfish people quoting "RIGHTS" as if what they wanted is the only thing that mattered. Guess what??  There is no "right" to privacy in a public place.  If you don't want to be bugged, then don't go to places where you stand out and draw attention to yourself.  Very simple.  If there have been several robberies/break ins in my neighborhood (which was the case) and I see someone walking around in the rain stopping and looking around that I have never seen before, I'm gonna either 1) call the police to have them investigate or 2) talk to them myself.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> on a side note...
> 
> what _did _you tell them when they wanted to know why you were in the hood?
> I mean, telling them you want to score dope would not work, or that you are a copper.... :lol:


No i would normally say i was waiting for a friend they would call BS and tell me to get out of the area and i would.  
I call the dealer i was waiting for and tell them i moved to a new place.
No harm no foul everyone was happy and nobody got shot.  Little civility goes along way


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> you have no freedom from being questioned.  I can approach anyone i want for any reason and ask them a question.  You dont need to answer but i can still ask.  I guess i look at things differently i dont see every person that asks me a question as some power hungry authoritarian out to restrict my freedoms.  I also dont loose any freedom by answering a simple question.  Why you here?  Im cutting thru to my house over on main st.  And id keep on walking he wants to follow me good i dont care.  He wants to call the police fine call them i dont care.  Like i said before when i was under cover i was questioned by residents of areas i was parked in i didnt get defensive or pissed about what authority they have to question me.  I thought it was good to see people taking pride in there neighborhood



While it's true that anyone can be suspected of something--one can't do anything about that--every person has the freedom in how they choose to respond.  Where I draw the line is in the expectation to (a) acquiesce to the notion that I am out of place; and (b) that it's reasonable for *me* to discharge my good neighbor duty to oblige the person who's suspicious of me *in a crime/potential criminal context*.  Not that I'm lost, or need directions, or am some annoying encyclopedia salesman or some other BS pretext.  But in the context of "_well, we've had some burglaries in the neighborhood, so ya know ... just askin_'".  As I said earlier, if you are perfectly fine with accepting that kind of dynamic, then that's fine for you.  Just don't expect it of me.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> While it's true that anyone can be suspected of something--one can't do anything about that


you do know not everyone is out to get you right?  Just because someone has the nerve to actually speak to you does not mean they think your a criminal.




> --every person has the freedom in how they choose to respond.


True and if people actually talked to others as people not worried about who has what authority then we would all live longer happier lives.  But some are so wrapped up in finding the boogie man in everything they cant see a question as a question they see it as opression. Some people are always looking for a "victim" 


> Where I draw the line is in the expectation to (a) acquiesce to the notion that I am out of place;


Which you are.  If your new or not from the area you are "out of Place"  you act like there is something evil or wrong about that.  If I came to your neighborhood Id be out of place because Im not from there it does not mean I cant be there.


> (b) that it's reasonable for *me* to discharge my good neighbor duty to oblige the person who's suspicious of me *in a crime/potential criminal context*.


I thnk it is reasonable to respond to a simple question by a concerned party.



> Not that I'm lost, or need directions


Sometimes people really are lost just because I talk to someone does not mean I automatically am accusing them of a crime.  Ive asked many people if they are lost and SHOCKER I was really trying to help because they did look lost.


> or am some annoying encyclopedia salesman or some other BS pretext.  But in the context of "_well, we've had some burglaries in the neighborhood, so ya know ... just askin_'".


I see nothing wrong with that.  There neighborhood they have a vested interest in making sure its safe.  I would expect you to look after your neighborhood as much as I look after mine.


> As I said earlier, if you are perfectly fine with accepting that kind of dynamic, then that's fine for you.  Just don't expect it of me.


See theres your probelm you see it as some big "dynamic"  I see it as being friendly.


----------



## WC_lun

I just moved into a new nieghborhood.  Much nicer than the one I came from (no bullet holes in my house here).  I was walking arounf my new house making a list of things to do and to be honest I was looking pretty scraggly.  A nieghbor walked up and asked if he could help me with something.  I actually was very pleased.  It meant my new nieghbors care about the nieghborhood.  It means my wife will be safer when alone than my old nieghborhood.  It was a good thing.  It is not something that would of normally happened in my old, high crime nieghborhood.

Now if the nieghbor had threatened me, attacked me, or shot me, because I didn't look like I belonged there, then that is something else entirely.  I just don't see how you fault a man for caring if his nieghborhood is crime free.  If the worst youhave to face is a few questions from a well meaning nieghbor, then so what?


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> you do know not everyone is out to get you right?  Just because someone has the nerve to actually speak to you does not mean they think your a criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> True and if people actually talked to others as people not worried about who has what authority then we would all live longer happier lives.  But some are so wrapped up in finding the boogie man in everything they cant see a question as a question they see it as opression. Some people are always looking for a "victim"
> 
> ...
> 
> Which you are.  If your new or not from the area you are "out of Place"  you act like there is something evil or wrong about that.  If I came to your neighborhood Id be out of place because Im not from there it does not mean I cant be there.
> 
> ....
> 
> I thnk it is reasonable to respond to a simple question by a concerned party.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sometimes people really are lost just because I talk to someone does not mean I automatically am accusing them of a crime.  Ive asked many people if they are lost and SHOCKER I was really trying to help because they did look lost.
> 
> ...
> 
> I see nothing wrong with that.  There neighborhood they have a vested interest in making sure its safe.  I would expect you to look after your neighborhood as much as I look after mine.
> 
> ...
> 
> See theres your probelm you see it as some big "dynamic"  I see it as being friendly.



One thing I notice, and that I believe we can both agree on, is that all the above would be genuinely coming from a good place; politeness, goodness, kindness.

Ironically, isn't it a good chance that Trayvon Martin would still be alive today if George Zimmerman had approached Trayvon with all the same goodness, kindness, and politeness?


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> One thing I notice, and that I believe we can both agree on, is that all the above would be genuinely coming from a good place; politeness, goodness, kindness.
> 
> Ironically, isn't it a good chance that Trayvon Martin would still be alive today if George Zimmerman had approached Trayvon with all the same goodness, kindness, and politeness?




You are assuming....
I don't think a lot of people know what actually happened preceding the fatal shooting. 
maybe there would have been no drama at all if _both _people involved had minded their manners.

Maybe only one was a brat. 

I know that children and teens often do not see their behavior patterns as insulting or offensive.
Or any type of interaction from an adult (or any other person, really) can be seen as insult. 

I suppose some of what transpired will come out in court.

maybe.


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> You are assuming....
> I don't think a lot of people know what actually happened preceding the fatal shooting.
> maybe there would have been no drama at all if _both _people involved had minded their manners.
> 
> Maybe only one was a brat.
> 
> I know that children and teens often do not see their behavior patterns as insulting or offensive.
> Or any type of interaction from an adult (or any other person, really) can be seen as insult.
> 
> I suppose some of what transpired will come out in court.
> 
> maybe.



The content of Zimmerman's 911 call eliminates the need to assume certain things.  

He deemed Martin suspicious.  There were no niceties extended.


----------



## ballen0351

I stated that a bit ago had both zimmerman confronted martin politely and just tokd him what he was doing and had Martin responded with the same civility and just explained to zimmerman what he was doing we would not be having this conversation.  But its the attitude of youcant question me im a grown *** man how dare you speak to me that put us where we are today  the same attitude you dispaly on this thread and having delt with Many teenage boys and having been one myself once i can see the same attitude you display comong from martin.  I was the same way as a teen and young adult.  Nobody had the right to question me Im a man blah blah blah.  Ive seen too much violence over "he bumped into me"  or " he disrespected me"  or " he kept looking at me" that now ill take the approch of you want to ask me a question no problem ask away. Its safer for both of us.




Wo Fat said:


> One thing I notice, and that I believe we can both agree on, is that all the above would be genuinely coming from a good place; politeness, goodness, kindness.
> 
> Ironically, isn't it a good chance that Trayvon Martin would still be alive today if George Zimmerman had approached Trayvon with all the same goodness, kindness, and politeness?


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> I stated that a bit ago had both zimmerman confronted martin politely and just tokd him what he was doing and had Martin responded with the same civility and just explained to zimmerman what he was doing we would not be having this conversation.  But its the attitude of youcant question me im a grown *** man how dare you speak to me that put us where we are today  the same attitude you dispaly on this thread and having delt with Many teenage boys and having been one myself once i can see the same attitude you display comong from martin.  I was the same way as a teen and young adult.  Nobody had the right to question me Im a man blah blah blah.  Ive seen too much violence over "he bumped into me"  or " he disrespected me"  or " he kept looking at me" that now ill take the approch of you want to ask me a question no problem ask away. Its safer for both of us.



And if someone asked me why I was following them, I would stop, identify and explain myself. If things were not copacetic after that, I would have TAKEN THE ADVICE OF THE 911 OPERATOR AND LEFT THE MAN THE HELL ALONE!


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> And if someone asked me why I was following them, I would stop, identify and explain myself. If things were not copacetic after that, I would have TAKEN THE ADVICE OF THE 911 OPERATOR AND LEFT THE MAN THE HELL ALONE!



Yep and the person being followed should have just kept on walking hung up with his girlfriend and called 911 if he was so afraid.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I stated that a bit ago had both zimmerman confronted martin politely and just tokd him what he was doing and had Martin responded with the same civility and just explained to zimmerman what he was doing we would not be having this conversation.



My apology.  I must have missed that.  

You're absolutely right.  If Zimmerman had introduced/identified himself in a polite, respectful manner befitting a professional neighborhood watch captain ...

_ Good evening.  I'm George, the neighborhood watch captain.  How you doin'.  Are you new to the neighborhood?_

the most that Trayvon could have done was to be slightly offended and treated Zimmerman with all the respect of a mall cop.  GZ could have called the cops who would have eventually located Trayvon at his dad's fiance's house.  At worst, Trayvon would have gotten a talking-to by his dad about being a smart-a$$ and inviting a visit by the cops.  But he'd be alive and maybe on restriction or something.


----------



## shesulsa

Do you really think the average 17-year-old male is that educated?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## shesulsa

shesulsa said:


> Do you really think the average 17-year-old male is that educated?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2



That was addressed to Ballen. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

shesulsa said:


> Do you really think the average 17-year-old male is that educated?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2




trick question.

While they should certainly know better - I'd say no.


----------



## shesulsa

granfire said:


> trick question.
> 
> While they should certainly know better - I'd say no.



No trick intended. My daughter at 17 didn't know to call 911 after she was a pedestrian victim of a hit-and-run.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

shesulsa said:


> No trick intended. My daughter at 17 didn't know to call 911 after she was a pedestrian victim of a hit-and-run.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2




well, like I said, ought to know better...

But I sure hope she knew the number for 911...(a joke between my kid, not 17 yet, and myself)


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> Do you really think the average 17-year-old male is that educated?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2



I dont know but they taught my kindergartner how to call 911 in school so I would say most are.


----------



## jks9199

shesulsa said:


> No trick intended. My daughter at 17 didn't know to call 911 after she was a pedestrian victim of a hit-and-run.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2



Actually, not uncommon.  Adrenaline response; it makes us all idiots.  How many people actually practice calling 911 in some sort of scenario training?  Your daughter, through no fault of her own or yours, simply couldn't do the mental processing to call 911.  She probably, I'm guessing, called mommy.  Because that was something she's done in emotionally charged situations.


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> I dont know but they taught my kindergartner how to call 911 in school so I would say most are.



Dude ... really? 

Knowing the number, that it is for emergencies, and how to dial it are kindergarten skills. I'm talking about in the context of victimization. We teach our kids to call it under external circumstances, not necessarily nor specifically if they could be victims, especially if the situation appears manageable to them. And really, what situation does a pedestrian 17 yo male think he cannot handle?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

jks9199 said:


> Actually, not uncommon.  Adrenaline response; it makes us all idiots.  How many people actually practice calling 911 in some sort of scenario training?  Your daughter, through no fault of her own or yours, simply couldn't do the mental processing to call 911.  She probably, I'm guessing, called mommy.  Because that was something she's done in emotionally charged situations.





shesulsa said:


> Dude ... really?
> 
> Knowing the number, that it is for emergencies, and how to dial it are kindergarten skills. I'm talking about in the context of victimization. We teach our kids to call it under external circumstances, not necessarily nor specifically if they could be victims, especially if the situation appears manageable to them. And really, what situation does a pedestrian 17 yo male think he cannot handle?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2




I can see that...
I was nervous calling 911 when my neighbor set his lawn on fire a couple of years ago...and it was not a serious emergency, though the line of embers was stretching from gas meter to gas meter...

And while we are told 'call 911' we are also taught not to for frivilous stuff, or 'OMG I BUTT DIALED 911!!' 

(however...a creepy guy following you around, that's normally not a adrenalin situation... plenty of time to hang up, dial and have your finger on the send button!)


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> Dude ... really?
> 
> Knowing the number, that it is for emergencies, and how to dial it are kindergarten skills. I'm talking about in the context of victimization. We teach our kids to call it under external circumstances, not necessarily nor specifically if they could be victims, especially if the situation appears manageable to them. And really, what situation does a pedestrian 17 yo male think he cannot handle?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2



Well Ive responded to 911 calls made by kids all the time normally when daddy is smacking mommy around again.  So can kids do it Yes they can.  Can every kid do it Nope.
 Now I do teach my kids how to dial it and when but Im also a paranoid safety freak.  Ive had a people follow me home from work before and when I was single and lived in the same jurisdiction I worked in I had a guy and his friends That I locked up a few hours before show up in my driveway in the middle of the night.  When I was K-9 and had a marked patrol car in the driveway Ive had people run to my house for help and even a guy that wanted to turn himself in on a Warrant.  So my kids know how and when to call 911.


----------



## shesulsa

granfire said:


> I can see that...
> I was nervous calling 911 when my neighbor set his lawn on fire a couple of years ago...and it was not a serious emergency, though the line of embers was stretching from gas meter to gas meter...
> 
> And while we are told 'call 911' we are also taught not to for frivilous stuff, or 'OMG I BUTT DIALED 911!!'
> 
> (however...a creepy guy following you around, that's normally not a adrenalin situation... plenty of time to hang up, dial and have your finger on the send button!)



See, I think that stuff is a no-brainer. Some people will hesitate to call 911 when something is happening to them because they don't think it warrants it yet. Example: I have a tenant who had someone pounding on the front door and trying to open it ... she just stood there yelling, not thinking to call 911.  To me, that's a no-brainer.  Of course you call 911.  Someone following you?  Hell, I've called because I heard a gunshot in the neighborhood and they didn't come out; what would I call 911 for? Avoid the person? go straight home? that's what they would tell the kid. He knew that so ... why call? Even if he got into a fight he likely wouldn't call.

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, isn't it?  We're all alive to second-guess the kid.  I'm just saying I'm in contact with A LOT of teens and they rarely call the police or 911 even when (obviously to me) it is warranted.  Knowing how to dial, knowing that a fire or accident requires the call ... that's child's play.  Calling on something like this?  I can TOTALLY see my kid's friends NOT calling 911 just because they don't think bad things will happen to them or that they can't handle a street fight.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> See, I think that stuff is a no-brainer. Some people will hesitate to call 911 when something is happening to them because they don't think it warrants it yet. Example: I have a tenant who had someone pounding on the front door and trying to open it ... she just stood there yelling, not thinking to call 911.  To me, that's a no-brainer.  Of course you call 911.  Someone following you?  Hell, I've called because I heard a gunshot in the neighborhood and they didn't come out; what would I call 911 for? Avoid the person? go straight home? that's what they would tell the kid. He knew that so ... why call? Even if he got into a fight he likely wouldn't call.


How on earth do you know what the dispatcher would have told him?  More then likely being a smaller town they would have put two and two together with.his call and zimmermans and either told responding units to increase code because the situation is getting worse.  Or they would have said police are already coming which may have prevented him from feeling the need to defend himself.



> Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, isn't it?  We're all alive to second-guess the kid.  I'm just saying I'm in contact with A LOT of teens and they rarely call the police or 911 even when (obviously to me) it is warranted.  Knowing how to dial, knowing that a fire or accident requires the call ... that's child's play.  Calling on something like this?  I can TOTALLY see my kid's friends NOT calling 911 just because they don't think bad things will happen to them or that they can't handle a street fight.



So use this as a teaching tool to show them when its proper to call 911.


----------



## Carol

My chemistry professor taught us that an emergency is when your actions make a difference.  Reporting something to 911 doesn't necessarily have to mean encountering a fire or a blood-and-guts accident.  It could be a tweaker continuously harassing a solo c-store clerk late at night, or a car stalled out in the right lane.

Even taking a sec to listen to a child's shriek...is it normal kid stuff?  Or is there more going on?

Calling 911 is a skill.  It can be awkward.  But w/ proper situational awareness, it can also make difference, both now and later.


----------



## Wo Fat

> But its the attitude of youcant question me im a grown *** man how dare you speak to me that put us where we are today ...





> Yep and the person being followed should have just kept on walking hung up with his girlfriend and called 911 if he was so afraid.



And once again, here's the dichotomy.  Trayvon acted like the typical brainless, smart-alec teenager; it's no wonder this happened.  At the same time, Trayvon should have had the composure and presence of mind to recognize a potentially dangerous situation and call 911.


----------



## ballen0351

I think beyond Martin this shows a lack of respect in general by kids towards adults.  50 years ago kids were taught to respect adults.  Now they are taught that nobody has the right to speak to them.  They dont need to lisren to anyone.  They are abusive to teachers, police,  even their own parents.  I get cussed at and yell at more by teenagers then i ever do by adults.  Its sad because i dont see it getting better.


----------



## d1jinx

ballen0351 said:


> I think beyond Martin this shows a lack of respect in general by kids towards adults. 50 years ago kids were taught to respect adults. Now they are taught that nobody has the right to speak to them. They dont need to lisren to anyone. They are abusive to teachers, police, even their own parents. I get cussed at and yell at more by teenagers then i ever do by adults. Its sad because i dont see it getting better.



this is the kind-ler, gent-ler, politically correct America.  You dont "EARN" anything, you "EXPECT" everything.  Everything is Owed to everyone and no one is supposed to work for it.  Not to mention, everyone thinks its thier business to be in yours so.... how can it get any better?


----------



## d1jinx

Wo Fat said:


> And once again, here's the dichotomy. Trayvon acted like the typical brainless, smart-alec teenager; it's no wonder this happened. At the same time, Trayvon should have had the composure and presence of mind to recognize a potentially dangerous situation and call 911.



2 people went looking for trouble.... and found it.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I think beyond Martin this shows a lack of respect in general by kids towards adults.  50 years ago kids were taught to respect adults.  Now they are taught that nobody has the right to speak to them.  They dont need to lisren to anyone.  They are abusive to teachers, police,  even their own parents.  I get cussed at and yell at more by teenagers then i ever do by adults.  Its sad because i dont see it getting better.



I'm thinking that there's a general lack of respect and civility within all of society.  But yes, definitely among teens.  And it's (disrespectful behavior) coming from all statuses and classes of teens--urban, suburban, "good families", broken families, you name it.  I agree, it's sad.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I agree with Dershowitz on this:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/148756895.html



> In a recent interview with me, Dershowitz acknowledged the low evidentiary bar necessary at this juncture but still opined that Corey has not met it.
> 
> "Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin," Dershowitz said. "This is so thin that it won't make it past the judge on a second-degree murder charge. There is simply nothing in there that would justify second-degree murder. The elements of the crime aren't established ...
> 
> "There is nothing in there, of course, either about the stains on the back of Zimmerman's shirt, the blood on the back of his head, the bloody nose, all of that. It's not only thin, it's irresponsible. I think that what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech ... for re-election when she gave her presentation, and overcharged, way overcharged. ...
> 
> "If the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable-cause affidavit, this case will result in an acquittal."



It's all opinion, of course, but I think Dershowitz is correct.  Again, it has nothing to do with what actually happened; only with what can be proven to have happened, which is not the same thing.


----------



## Wo Fat

@ Alan Dershowitz re Zimmerman case "doomed"

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/148756895.html

What Prof. Dershowitz does not mention is whether the judge in this particular case will act on precedent.  In other words, have 2nd degree murder charges ripened to convictions, based on similar quality/quantity of evidence in cases where there was no media scrutiny, public interest or expectations?

I'd bet that this judge has presided over many a conviction on similar or less.  We the public just weren't that interested.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> I'm thinking that there's a general lack of respect and civility within all of society. But yes, definitely among teens. And it's (disrespectful behavior) coming from all statuses and classes of teens--urban, suburban, "good families", broken families, you name it. I agree, it's sad.



I agree I dont understand how or why there was such a big change or really if it is a change at all maybe people have always been this was we just think of the old days as being more "leave it to beaver."  I would guess things have gotten worse but I may be wrong.  I do know kids have very little respect for authority today.  Ive picked kids up for doing stupid things not charged them with a crime but just drove them home to their parents house and have been cussed out by parents for harrassing their kids.  I once had a 5 year old point her finger at me like a gun say "bang bang another dead Pig"  and then laugh.  I stoped and spoke to her parent her mom said "So what we dont like the F'in police in this house now get off my property." Some how I dont see that happening 50 years ago.

This is one thing I wish I knew how to fix in society because it makes me worried about the future.  I think part of it is the ME ME ME attitude that d1jinx mentioned I just dont know how we got here today or see a way to move it back a few pegs.


----------



## WC_lun

To me, society has gotten more polarized, rather than a general lack of respect.  There aren't a greater number of asshats, but they do take it further than they used too. What is deemed acceptable behavior by these people, would not even have been considered 50 years ago. On the other hand, we see people who do really great deeds.  I don't think we tend to notice those people as much.  Our media certainly seems to like to report more on the people who behave badly, maling them celebrities of sort.  I think we tend to notice the people who behave badly more in our personal lives as well.

I don't think we can put a label on Travon yet.  It would be best to just wait for the trial and see what conspired.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> I don't think we can put a label on Travon yet. It would be best to just wait for the trial and see what conspired.



I wasnt really speaking of Travon in the above post but more society in general.  I dont know the story on what happened with Travon.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

A more nuanced picture of GZ emerges.  Not quite the monster he's being painted as.

Self-appointed watch captain?  No.  Apparently asked by his neighborhood HOA to organize a NW and be its captain.

Wanna-be cop?  Stated he wanted to be a judge; went to school for a criminal justice degree, was one credit shy when the shooting occurred.

Racist?  His maternal grandmother, who helped raise him was Afro-Peruvian; he's part black as well as hispanic and white.  He also grew up in a mixed-race household, according to other family members and friends who knew him growing up.  He owned his own insurance store for a time, with a friend as a partner who was black.  Doesn't seem like a racist would want to do that.

Gun-toting guy eager to shoot someone?  Never owned a gun until his wife was repeatedly threatened by a neighborhood dog that kept running loose and advised to purchase a gun by authorities; he and his wife both completed safety training and were issued CCW permits.  Most of his friends didn't even know he carried.  Hardly someone who was gun-crazy.

Why did he suspect Trayvon?  According to a neighbor (whom the article states clearly is black herself), it was because young black men had been breaking into houses in the complex, leading to the HOA asking GZ to become NW captain.

This is all anecdotal.  It doesn't mean GZ did or did not do the things he is accused of.  But it kind of blows up the notion that he was some kind of blood-thirsty racist monster, hoping that one day he could shoot a black teenager to death and get away with it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

I realize that those who have already arrived at an opinion regarding GZ's racism are not going to believe one word of this Reuters article.  That's telling as well.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> I agree I dont understand how or why there was such a big change or really if it is a change at all maybe people have always been this was we just think of the old days as being more "leave it to beaver."  I would guess things have gotten worse but I may be wrong.  I do know kids have very little respect for authority today.  Ive picked kids up for doing stupid things not charged them with a crime but just drove them home to their parents house and have been cussed out by parents for harrassing their kids.  I once had a 5 year old point her finger at me like a gun say "bang bang another dead Pig"  and then laugh.  I stoped and spoke to her parent her mom said "So what we dont like the F'in police in this house now get off my property." Some how I dont see that happening 50 years ago.
> 
> This is one thing I wish I knew how to fix in society because it makes me worried about the future.  I think part of it is the ME ME ME attitude that d1jinx mentioned I just dont know how we got here today or see a way to move it back a few pegs.



Again, we're in agreement.  There has been a serious loss of civility, decency and common respect (I confess, I'm occasionally guilty of it).  For sure, it's coming from kids in society.  But it's also coming from adults.  Kids notice this. 

A basic lack of respect and civility exists in pretty much all facets of society today (business, education, government).  You name it, we (the adults; the authority) have lost our ability to respect and honor one another.   It's no wonder that kids emulate that.  Not all adults are suffer from a lack of basic respect, and not all kids are disrespectful of adults.  But there is enough disrespect and dishonor in society that we have a serious problem.


----------



## Sukerkin

It is possible to win some of that civil behaviour back by example, mind you.  

My place of work is a much more polite environment now than it was when I started and I like to flatter myself with thinking I had a part to play in that.  Simple things that should be basic courtesy but sometimes get forgotten can be reawakened in people.  Just holding a door for someone, saying "Good morning" when you pass in the corridors, addressing people as Mister, Missus etc, all make a difference to how pleasant the day is.


----------



## Wo Fat

> Why did he suspect Trayvon? According to a neighbor (whom the article states clearly is black herself), it was because young black men had been breaking into houses in the complex, leading to the HOA asking GZ to become NW captain.



A while ago up-thread, someone took a stab at pointing out my or someone else's faulty logic (if [these do this] and [that does that] then [this is that] ... or some such supposed fallacy).

The above quote evidences the precise kind of logical fallacy that the earlier poster referenced:

Premise: Twin Lakes is a neighborhood;

Premise: Young Blacks had been burglarizing houses in the neighborhood;

Premise: Trayvon Martin is a young Black;

Conclusion:  Trayvon Martin is a burglary suspect.

These kinds of absurd leaps in logic can definitely apply to other ethnicities and races as well.  Think child molester, serial killer, financial fraudster, etc.


----------



## Sukerkin

I'm not so certain that is a logical fallacy as much as it is the way that humans tend to assess threats.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> A while ago up-thread, someone took a stab at pointing out my or someone else's faulty logic (if [these do this] and [that does that] then [this is that] ... or some such supposed fallacy).
> 
> The above quote evidences the precise kind of logical fallacy that the earlier poster referenced:
> 
> Premise: Twin Lakes is a neighborhood;
> 
> Premise: Young Blacks had been burglarizing houses in the neighborhood;
> 
> Premise: Trayvon Martin is a young Black;
> 
> Conclusion:  Trayvon Martin is a burglary suspect.
> 
> These kinds of absurd leaps in logic can definitely apply to other ethnicities and races as well.  Think child molester, serial killer, financial fraudster, etc.




Lets face it, it's the game of mathematical probability, paired with the human element.

If the neighborhood had been hit by white guys in delivery trucks, the cable guy would have had to deal with suspicion. 


(no, seriously, reread your post above. Tell me you don't see it! I mean, really REALLY really? Did you just go there?)


----------



## Bill Mattocks

After having taken and reading many armed robbery and strongarm robbery reports in my life, I have noticed that many of them begin with the same innocent prelude; the mugger asks the victim for a light for his cigarette.  It's common, it's usual, it's a danger sign.

So if I am walking down the street and someone stops me and asks me for a light, I'm GOING TO BE SUSPICIOUS.  Profiling?  Yeah, sure, whatever.  To not pay attention to that would be stupid on my part.

Now apply that to 'Twin Lakes'.  By the Reuter's article, it is a fully integrated community; not a white enclave or anything of that sort.  People of all races live there.  However, the spate of recent burglaries have been recognized to have been committed by black teenage boys or young men.  Not white, not hispanic, not asian, not girls.  What kind of stupid does a person have to be to not take note of that?

When I was a police dispatcher and issued BOLOs on the radio, do you think I refused to mention the race of the person for whom the officers should look?  I'd tell them what he was wearing, how tall he was, hair color and whatever else, but NOT skin color, because THAT would be profiling?  Nonsense.

It is not racist to take note of the skin color of the person or persons who have been seen burglarizing homes in the area recently.  It would exceedingly stupid to fail to take note of it.  At that point, it's a physical attribute, no different than hair color or eye color or age or gender or clothing worn or vehicle driven.  It's a legitimate description.

But as I said, those who already have their minds made up will not be convinced by any set of facts whatsoever.  They cannot change their opinion, because their world view precludes it.


----------



## Wo Fat

_It's not profiling; it's common sense._

_It's not profiling; it's simply good math._

Fact: the only times in my life that I have had uninitiated violent or near-violent encounters were with White males who didn't like the fact that I was dating a White female.  I live in Southern suburban area where the male population is predominantly White.  

Is it common sense or good math to conclude that my next violent or near-violent confrontation will likely be with a bigoted White male?


----------



## billc

Here is part of the article from Reuters, who investigated George Zimmerman...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425



> But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has  emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series  of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin  shooting.
> 
> Based on extensive  interviews with relatives, friends, neighbors, schoolmates and  co-workers of Zimmerman in two states, law enforcement officials, and  reviews of court documents and police reports, the story sheds new light  on the man at the center of one of the most controversial homicide  cases in America.
> The 28-year-old  insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and  was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He  was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black  roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the  maternal grandmother who helped raise him.
> A  criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also  concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of  break-ins committed by young African-American men.
> Though  civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have  prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent  history should be taken into account.
> "Let's  talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said,  declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her  race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were  black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why  George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."





> Gladys came to lead a small but growing  Catholic Hispanic enclave within the All Saints Catholic Church parish  in the late 1970s, where she was involved in the church's outreach  programs. Gladys would bring young George along with her on "home  visits" to poor families, said a family friend, Teresa Post.
> 
> "It  was part of their upbringing to know that there are people in need,  people more in need than themselves," said Post, a Peruvian immigrant  who lived with the Zimmermans for a time.
> Post  recalls evening prayers before dinner in the ethnically diverse  Zimmerman household, which included siblings Robert Jr., Grace, and  Dawn. "It wasn't only white or only Hispanic or only black - it was  mixed," she said.
> Zimmerman's  maternal grandmother, Cristina, who had lived with the Zimmermans since  1978, worked as a babysitter for years during Zimmerman's childhood. For  several years she cared for two African-American girls who ate their  meals at the Zimmerman house and went back and forth to school each day  with the Zimmerman children.
> "They were part of the household for years, until they were old enough to be on their own," Post said.



Perhaps the following expains why Zimmerman was so vigilant...



> A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FEAR
> 
> By  the summer of 2011, Twin Lakes was experiencing a rash of burglaries  and break-ins. Previously a family-friendly, first-time homeowner  community, it was devastated by the recession that hit the Florida  housing market, and transient renters began to occupy some of the 263  town houses in the complex. Vandalism and occasional drug activity were  reported, and home values plunged. One resident who bought his home in  2006 for $250,000 said it was worth $80,000 today.
> At  least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months  prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police  Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said  dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing  homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.
> In  several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police  as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50 percent white, with an  African-American and Hispanic population of about 20 percent each,  roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S.  Census data.
> One morning in July  2011, a black teenager walked up to Zimmerman's front porch and stole a  bicycle, neighbors told Reuters. A police report was taken, though the  bicycle was not recovered.
> But it  was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really  troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman. Shellie was home most  days, taking online courses towards certification as a registered  nurse.
> On August 3, Bertalan was  at home with her infant son while her husband, Michael, was at work. She  watched from a downstairs window, she said, as two black men repeatedly  rang her doorbell and then entered through a sliding door at the back  of the house. She ran upstairs, locked herself inside the boy's bedroom,  and called a police dispatcher, whispering frantically.





> "I said, 'What am I supposed to do? I hear  them coming up the stairs!'" she told Reuters. Bertalan tried to coo her  crying child into silence and armed herself with a pair of rusty  scissors.
> 
> Police arrived just as  the burglars - who had been trying to disconnect the couple's television  - fled out a back door. Shellie Zimmerman saw a black male teen running  through her backyard and reported it to police.
> After  police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a  shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index  card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He  returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door  that had been forced open.
> "He was  so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last  week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we  talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just  George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week."
> In  September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the  homeowners association with their concerns, she said. Zimmerman was  asked to head up a new neighborhood watch. He agreed.



Does this witness testimony paint a different picture of the neighborhood and of George Zimmerman?


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> _It's not profiling; it's common sense._
> 
> _It's not profiling; it's simply good math._
> 
> Fact: the only times in my life that I have had uninitiated violent or near-violent encounters were with White males who didn't like the fact that I was dating a White female.  I live in Southern suburban area where the male population is predominantly White.
> 
> Is it common sense or good math to conclude that my next violent or near-violent confrontation will likely be with a bigoted White male?



So you are the George Jefferson of the county.

In your case, you were _dating_ willing white female(s).
That is yours and her business.
had there been a string of rapes done by a black guy...now, there is the difference.

Oh, right...the crime aspect. 

Somewhere along the line your logic is taking a detour I can't follow.

We'll see at the trial I suppose....


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> _It's not profiling; it's common sense._
> 
> _It's not profiling; it's simply good math._
> 
> Fact: the only times in my life that I have had uninitiated violent or near-violent encounters were with White males who didn't like the fact that I was dating a White female.  I live in Southern suburban area where the male population is predominantly White.
> 
> Is it common sense or good math to conclude that my next violent or near-violent confrontation will likely be with a bigoted White male?



Thats kind of a flawed argument.  If in fact there were an increase in burglaries in the area and if the suspects are identifed as young black males it would be only make sense that when you see a strange young black male then as a neighborhood watch person you would want to check them out.

Recent example we have a neighborhood thats has an increase in burglary in the last 2 months.  We have footage of the suspect hes a hispanic male looks to be mid 20s tall and skinny.  So when im in the area should i not be looking for a young hispanic male tall and skinny?  I of course wont only look for hispanics but if i notice one acting suspicious like walking in the rain thru the neighborhood should i not atbleast watch them.for a bit tosee what hes doing?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Thats kind of a flawed argument.  If in fact there were an increase in burglaries in the area and if the suspects are identifed as young black males it would be only make sense that when you see a strange young black male then as a neighborhood watch person you would want to check them out.
> 
> Recent example we have a neighborhood thats has an increase in burglary in the last 2 months.  We have footage of the suspect hes a hispanic male looks to be mid 20s tall and skinny.  So when im in the area should i not be looking for a young hispanic male tall and skinny?  I of course wont only look for hispanics but if i notice one acting suspicious like walking in the rain thru the neighborhood should i not atbleast watch them.for a bit tosee what hes doing?




It's the TSA logic in things I think:
The 9/11 terrorists where men in their mid 20s, of middle eastern descent. This is why they fondle little girls and old crippled women of caucasian descent. It's logic!

Because when you notice the difference in skin tone you are a RACIST.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> A while ago up-thread, someone took a stab at pointing out my or someone else's faulty logic (if [these do this] and [that does that] then [this is that] ... or some such supposed fallacy).
> 
> The above quote evidences the precise kind of logical fallacy that the earlier poster referenced:
> 
> Premise: Twin Lakes is a neighborhood;
> 
> Premise: Young Blacks had been burglarizing houses in the neighborhood;
> 
> Premise: Trayvon Martin is a young Black;
> 
> Conclusion:  Trayvon Martin is a burglary suspect.
> 
> These kinds of absurd leaps in logic can definitely apply to other ethnicities and races as well.  Think child molester, serial killer, financial fraudster, etc.



I disagree.  You have black kids burglarizing a neighborhood.  You have a black kid out walking in inclement weather.  The kid is a burglary SUSPECT.  Suspicion is not proof; being a suspect does not mean someone is guilty of the offense.  That suspicion can be dispelled or confirmed.  Zimmerman called the police to do that, and eventually ended up in a confrontation with Martin.  Zimmerman did have reasonable, articulable suspicion based on your own assessment here.  (I don't know how accurate the "black kids have been burglarizing homes" line is; race is actually rather irrelevant.)  Zimmerman initially acted in a reasonable manner to confirm or dispel that suspicion; he called the police.  It becomes more problematic with the actual confrontation -- but we don't know who said what, and how.  Without some of those details -- either or both could have been the problem.


----------



## elder999

Wo Fat said:


> Is it common sense or good math to conclude that my next violent or near-violent confrontation will likely be with a bigoted White male?



*Yes.*


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> It's the TSA logic in things I think:
> The 9/11 terrorists where men in their mid 20s, of middle eastern descent. This is why they fondle little girls and old crippled women of caucasian descent. It's logic!
> 
> Because when you notice the difference in skin tone you are a RACIST.



I disagree with that also.
In the Martin case you have a specific set of issues.  Rise in crime in a specific area with in a specific time frame and a specifc set of suspects in these crimes Young black males in this specific area.  There are set boundries.  For example I cant say there was a rise in thefts in Sanford Fla commit by black males so In Boston Mass I need to be looking for black males. Or same token I cant say well we had thefts in this area 5 years ago commited by a group of hispanics so the new rise in crime in this area must be hispanics.  You need some evidence to build your "profile"

TSA has a much wider scope so you cant just look for 1 specific type of person.  There are white terror groups, asian terror groups, black terror groups, lone wolf crazy people that could all try to hijack a plane.  There is no specifc set of issues with that.

2 totally different issues.


----------



## elder999

Master Dan said:


> No don't go back to the 70's go back 150 years what ever its a cultural fact in the south or other areas a black person cannot walk or wear certain clothes or just go where they want with out risk. Zimmerman being Hispanic is not the issue he was an agressive non black and there was probable cause the police department is a mess and he should have been arrested and leave to a jury to decide inocent or guilty plane and simple





ballen0351 said:


> So now were going back to the 70's as to why Zimmerman wasnt charged? Why stop there why not go back to Rosewood in 1923, or even further lets blame Zimmerman not being charged on slavery. Save your Racist Fla cop crap for someone else.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> View attachment 16329



Nevermind we went over that like 20 pages ago but thats for playing


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> I disagree with that also.
> In the Martin case you have a specific set of issues.  Rise in crime in a specific area with in a specific time frame and a specifc set of suspects in these crimes Young black males in this specific area.  There are set boundries.  For example I cant say there was a rise in thefts in Sanford Fla commit by black males so In Boston Mass I need to be looking for black males. Or same token I cant say well we had thefts in this area 5 years ago commited by a group of hispanics so the new rise in crime in this area must be hispanics.  You need some evidence to build your "profile"
> 
> TSA has a much wider scope so you cant just look for 1 specific type of person.  There are white terror groups, asian terror groups, black terror groups, lone wolf crazy people that could all try to hijack a plane.  There is no specifc set of issues with that.
> 
> 2 totally different issues.




I forgot </sarcasm>

But the premise is the same: You have a profile of the suspected offenders. 
To catch - or deter them you have to follow the profile.

Not all young black males are burglars and thieves.
But when you are in a neighborhood that has been hit by young black males and you happen t fit the category, guess what, you are suspect.
That neighbor who has not seen you before does not know that you are singing in the church.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> Thats kind of a flawed argument.  If in fact there were an increase in burglaries in the area and if the suspects are identifed as young black males it would be only make sense that when you see a strange young black male then as a neighborhood watch person you would want to check them out.
> 
> Recent example we have a neighborhood thats has an increase in burglary in the last 2 months.  We have footage of the suspect hes a hispanic male looks to be mid 20s tall and skinny.  So when im in the area should i not be looking for a young hispanic male tall and skinny?  I of course wont only look for hispanics but if i notice one acting suspicious like walking in the rain thru the neighborhood should i not atbleast watch them.for a bit tosee what hes doing?



You're right.  The argument I offered is a flawed one, which is precisely why I offered it.  It's not enough to conclude that if [bad things happen] and people from Group A have done [bad things], then Group A tend to be bad people.  There are several relevant intervening factors that don't allow for such an over-simplified conclusion.

Now, the defense of GZ--at least by _some_ here--is that he was following the logic of [young Black males committing burglaries in the area + TM was a young Black male = TM is likely to commit a burglary (or at the very least, suspicious)].  We know that GZ deemed TM as suspicious; the 911 transcripts indicate that.    

Now, for the record, I have said on several occasions:



> I don't know if GZ is a racist per se.





> I would also agree--again--that I do not know that Zimmerman is a racist.



And as has been suggested, GZ is part Afro-Peruvian; GZ has Black family or extended family; GZ has Black friends; GZ has served as a mentor for young Black males, etc., etc.  Not all that unusual.  But to rely on these factors to refute the "GZ is a racist argument" then one must also acknowledge that if anyone would tend to avoid pre-judging a young Black person as suspicious, it would have been GZ.  Someone with such an affinity for Black people--as some are suggesting--would likely not have immediately assumed that TM was "a real suspicious guy".

As it were with the fallacious argument that I offered, it's the same here.  It's absurd for me to conclude that since I've only had problems with White guys, that it's logically reasonable that I should be suspicious of them.  Especially with all the intervening factors--my family members are White; my friends are White; my students are White.  It's equally absurd to conclude that GZ only needed to act on the "logic" that young Black males were suspicious.  

None of us can have it both ways.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Nevermind we went over that like 20 pages ago but thats for playing



Well no, not really.

One can't be black in America without having images like this imprinted upon their consciousness, and suspecting as much each time an unarmed black man is killed-by a private citizen or the police:

View attachment $Lawrence-Beitler-Lynching.jpgView attachment $three.jpgView attachment $lynching.jpgView attachment $Omaha_courthouse_lynching.jpg

It simply was not that long ago that the lives of black people were regarded this cavalierly in the U.S.-couple that with the _perceived_ inaction, if not misconduct, of the Sanford P.D., and one cannot help but wonder, regardless of anything anyone has had to say in 43 pages.

To try to leave race completely out of it by denying racism is simply......_whitewashing._ :


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Well no, not really.
> 
> One can't be black in America without having images like this imprinted upon their consciousness, and suspecting as much each time an unarmed black man is killed-by a private citizen or the police:
> 
> View attachment 16330View attachment 16331View attachment 16332View attachment 16333View attachment 16334View attachment 16335
> 
> It simply was not that long ago that the lives of black people were regarded this cavalierly in the U.S.-couple that with the _perceived_ inaction, if not misconduct, of the Sanford P.D., and one cannot help but wonder, regardless of anything anyone has had to say in 43 pages.
> 
> To try to leave race completely out of it by denying racism is simply......_whitewashing._ :




I normally agree with you, but this is crap.

I suppose where Bill M. loses objectivity with religion, that is your point of less than stellar objectivity.

because 50 years ago that happened mean automatically a true American mutt guy of the neighborhood watch is indeed a racist.

I loff you, but this is BS.


----------



## ballen0351

Elder Im not even sure what point your trying to make.  Nobody has said Racism didnt exist 50 years ago , today, or even 50 years from now.  Ok Racism exists whats that got to do with this conversation?


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> I normally agree with you, but this is crap.
> 
> I suppose where Bill M. loses objectivity with religion, that is your point of less than stellar objectivity.
> 
> because 50 years ago that happened mean automatically a true American mutt guy of the neighborhood watch is indeed a racist.
> 
> I loff you, but this is BS.




Nowhere in this thread have I accused Zimmerman of being a racist. 

Nor is that what I'm doing by bringing this up-I'm just saying that black people aren't going to view it the same way as others might, *because* of events like this. I'm saying that you can't "get over slavery," or lynchings that took place 80 years ago, or 50 years ago, _*or even two years ago,*_because they're part of what black people simply have to be conscious of, each and every day-I can't say what Trayvon Martin was thinking when a strange man was following him, but I'll bet this was part of it-it *has* to be, just as I  have to "accept"  every single time someone views me as a possible menace, simply because of my appearance-it's what people are going to do, and I have no choice.


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Nowhere in this thread have I accused Zimmerman of being a racist.
> 
> Nor is that what I'm doing by bringing this up-I'm just saying that black people aren't going to view it the same way as others might, *because* of events like this. I'm saying that you can't "get over slavery," or lynchings that took place 80 years ago, or 50 years ago, _*or even two years ago,*_because they're part of what black people simply have to be conscious of, each and every day-I can't say what Trayvon Martin was thinking when a strange man was following him, but I'll bet this was part of it-it *has* to be, just as I  have to "accept"  every single time someone views me as a possible menace, simply because of my appearance-it's what people are going to do, and I have no choice.



Yeah, Like I am double checking when I am describing a person 'that black guy' just does not roll over the tongue easily.

race is what it is.
racism goes both ways.
yep, got a kid here, can't go out with the girl he likes, because her parents don't like her going out with a white guy.


----------



## WC_lun

I think there is a point to be made on both sides.  We do not know if Zimmerman acted out of racist motivation.  We don't have the facts of the case to know.  At the same time we do know that being a black man, especially a young black man, comes with certain risk and there IS a bloody history.  Even though many of us caucasians are not racist by any means, that history is still there.  It isn't something that will be soon forgotten by the black communities here, and that is natural.  It is also why cries of racism spring up, where none is intended.  Whites in this country aren't working off a great track record.

It is better if we understand where our fellow countrymen are coming from.  It will lead to an understanding that diminishes quarrels.  Instead of getting pissed because some in the black community are crying racism without proof, look at our history and why they do so.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Elder Im not even sure what point your trying to make. Nobody has said Racism didnt exist 50 years ago , today, or even 50 years from now. Ok Racism exists whats that got to do with this conversation?



An unarmed black boy shot dead, without any charges, and an "investigation" that the lead investigator signs an affidavit attesting to its lack of completion_ sounds _like a legal lynching-especially if you're black.


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> Yeah, Like I am double checking when I am describing a person 'that black guy' just does not roll over the tongue easily.
> 
> race is what it is.
> racism goes both ways.
> yep, got a kid here, can't go out with the girl he likes, because her parents don't like her going out with a white guy.



Interstingly, there's a strikingly similar story in Georgia involving just such a scenario.




> He grabbed the .22-caliber pistol he kept next to his bed and went to investigate. He found two young brothers who had been secretly invited to party with an 18-year-old relative he had raised like a daughter and her younger friend. The young people were paired up in separate bedrooms. There was marijuana and sex.
> Over the course of the next confusing minutes on a January morning in 2011, there would be a struggle. The young men would make a terrified run for the door. Mr. Neesmith, who is 62 and white, fired four shots. One of them hit Justin Patterson, who was 22 and black.
> The bullet pierced his side, and he died in Mr. Neesmith&#8217;s yard. His younger brother, Sha&#8217;von, then 18, ran through the onion fields in the dark, frantically trying to call his mother.



Of course, the reason this story hasn't got nearly as much attention is that the shooter was immediately charged.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> An unarmed black boy shot dead, without any charges, and an "investigation" that the lead investigator signs an affidavit attesting to its lack of completion_ sounds _like a legal lynching-especially if you're black.



Well i guess if you try hard enough you can find racism in everything but it does not mean its true


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Well i guess if you try hard enough you can find racism in everything but it does not mean its true



Not saying it *is* racism -what I'm saying is it's culturally imprinted on black people to see it that way, based on past events. 

If you don't see it through that lens, it's because you weren't issued "black goggles." :lol:

"True" or not, that's the way most people are going to see it-they can't help it, circumstances being what they are: the kid wasn't robbing anyone, wasn't armed, wasn't where he wasn't supposed to be. It looks-without knowing all the other facts-like the kid was shot for being a ****** on the sidewalk on a rainy evening, and the police didn't do anything about it.


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> Not saying it is racism -what I'm saying is it's culturally imprinted on black people to see it that way, based on past events.
> 
> If you don't see it through that lens, it's because you weren't issued "black goggles." :lol:
> 
> "True" or not, that's the way most people are going to see it-they can't help it, circumstances being what they are: the kid wasn't robbing anyone, wasn't armed, wasn't where he wasn't supposed to be. It looks-without knowing all the other facts-like the kid was shot for being a ****** on the sidewalk on a rainy evening, and the police didn't do anything about it.




I can see what you are getting at, it's like a race memory. I've had a good safe life in the UK but I still shiver at the word pogrom because of it's connotations and meaning for my people. I can still feel fear about mobs etc even though it's been years since Jews were killed in this way and it certainly never affected me directly but it's still there in the back of my mind despite all logic telling me it shouldn't be. 
I've only seen one of those photos before, the bridge one, the rest have shocked me quite a bit.


----------



## billc

And yet african americans vote overwhelmingly for democrats...


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> And yet african americans vote overwhelmingly for democrats...



That's because they're socialists.  :lfao:


----------



## billc

Hmmm...it doesn't address the fact that race memory being what it is, african americans vote for the same political party that conducted those lynchings and protected the people that did it.  The same political party that wanted slavery and the slave trade and then brutalized and killed african americans to keep them from excercising their rights as United States citizens.  They vote against the political party that freed the slaves, whatever may be believed about the start of the civil war, and fought to protect their rights as newly freed people.  Hmmmm...where is the "race memory" for that?

And now, a slight diversion from the Lovely and talented Ann Coulter...

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html



> Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC'S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")





> Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.
> 
> Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.
> 
> (Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)
> 
> In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen -- could not own guns.
> 
> Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: "_t would give them the full liberty," he said, "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."__
> 
> 
> With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.
> 
> Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.
> 
> After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted "Black Codes," denying black Americans the rights of citizenship -- such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms -- while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.
> 
> For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.
> 
> The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 -- passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant -- made it a federal felony to "deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress' authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.
> 
> _


----------



## Wo Fat

Not sure what Black Americans and the Democratic Party (purged 30+ years ago of its Dixiecrats and Southern strategists) have to do with this particular subject.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> I think beyond Martin this shows a lack of respect in general by kids towards adults. 50 years ago kids were taught to respect adults. Now they are taught that nobody has the right to speak to them. They dont need to lisren to anyone. They are abusive to teachers, police, even their own parents. I get cussed at and yell at more by teenagers then i ever do by adults. Its sad because i dont see it getting better.



Agreed!  Of course, I think alot of it has to do with the way things are.  When I was a kid and I talked back, misbehaved, etc, I'd get a whack or two on the ***.  That wasn't child abuse, it was discipline.  Fastforward to today.  Do that same thing, and you'll have every jackass within 30ft of you, on their cell phones, calling the cops, reporting child abuse.  Go figure.  Hell, nowadays, the kids themselves will threaten to call the cops.  I dont know if this has happened to you where you work, but there've been numerous times, when I've taken calls from parents who call to say their kids aren't listening to them.  So they (the parents), call the cops in hopes that they'll scare the kids into behaving.

Yup, its a sad situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I just deleted a rather long involved response to this nonsense.  Let me put it more simply.  You want to hate, hate.  You think others hate you because of your skin color, maybe they do and maybe they don't.  But you'll never know who is whom because you're locked in your little box of anger at everyone else's presumed racism.  I don't have time in my life for people who think everything that happens in the world is because someone doesn't like the color of their skin.  I'm tired of victims who apparently want or need to be victims.


----------



## shesulsa

I learned ... during the L.A. riots ... what racism really is.

Martial Law had been declared and supermarkets were all but out of food, no deliveries were being made to grocery stores in the larger L.A. area.  My first husband and I were renting a home with prolific citrus trees in the backyard. We decided to harvest them and bring the fruit to the city from northern Orange County.

We reached a span of highway where we were the only vehicle on the road. We passed a couple of five-and-dimes and liquor marts where we had once purchased comic books and bubble gum. Suddenly, calmly, a wave of black people flowed onto the street, watching us approach. We stopped, not knowing what to do. We got out of the car and pulled out a box of fruit - they started yelling and walking towards us. We quickly got the rest out and left it on the street, climbed back in and spun around to retreat. By that time, some people were running towards us throwing things. One guy took some of the oranges and threw them after us and another chased us for a short while.

Raised in a mixed culture in Christian schools, I blindly swallowed the equality notion hook, line and sinker.  Still feel strongly that we are all the same - to the extent where my gay and lesbian friends are oft disappointed when they come out to me and I barely react at all.

But THAT DAY - I knew what it was like to be white. And I will never forget that. I can only judge to the extent that the fight needs to be fought upon the right people.  I did not hang black people, I did not beat Rodney King, I did not steal native american land, I did not gay-bash a teenage boy, I did not rape women wearing tight jeans ... I have not done any of these things and for anyone to attack me because some other ignorant, hating assh*le did only perpetuates the hate already seeded by others. 

I will not, however, try to rob others of their history and culture nor their ongoing and well-founded fear.  After all - one would think we are over the race thing ... but we oh-so-obviously are not.

Remember: just because YOU might not be racist doesn't mean your neighbor is also not racist, that young black men are not killed just for being young black men.  Please also remember that not every white person is guilty nor should fall victim to racism as well.

I will never forget being beaten to a pulp, threatened with my life. But I won't hold mothers responsible for my victimization, nor my husband for accountable for what my ex did.

Onward.


----------



## Wo Fat

Well said, shesulsa.  I think we share a similar outlook.

My first experience with racism was in the early 1970's in northern California.  I was one of a handful of Black children bussed to a predominantly White school during the Bussing Experiment.  Only being 7 years old, I did not and could not fully appreciate what it meant, not just to be called ni**er, but called that word (and others) with hostility and violence.  I was certainly forewarned by my father, but could never have appreciated how pervasive that kind of sentiment would be.  It wasn't all kids and parents, but it was about 60/40 against my and other Black kids' presence at that school.  It was an experience that no child of any color should ever have.  Not in the America that we are all so proud of.

Like hundreds of millions of others with that kind of experience, it does not affect my ability to honor, respect and love my fellow man regardless of his or her race, ethnicity or color.  If anything, that kind of life experience taught me that human goodness knows no race, ethnicity or color.  Yet like other American minorities, it is an ingrained part of my culture to maintain an awareness and caution of racism and bigotry.  No, it isn't lurking behind every tree or dwelling in every other person.  It's something that exists like crime exists; like sexism exists; or other "isms" that affect our society.  Many or most are committed to fighting it.  Some are indifferent.  And a small few still either practice it, deny its existence, or both.  

When we acknowledge racial bigotry and fight it together, we are a better society for it.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Not saying it *is* racism -what I'm saying is it's culturally imprinted on black people to see it that way, based on past events.
> 
> If you don't see it through that lens, it's because you weren't issued "black goggles." :lol:
> 
> "True" or not, that's the way most people are going to see it-they can't help it, circumstances being what they are: the kid wasn't robbing anyone, wasn't armed, wasn't where he wasn't supposed to be. It looks-without knowing all the other facts-like the kid was shot for being a ****** on the sidewalk on a rainy evening, and the police didn't do anything about it.



Well I see what your saying I dont agree totally  I think the older generation thinks this way.  I dont believe the younger generation knows very much at all about the history of slavery or racism.  Hell I dont think the younger generation even knows who the vice president is.  Thats not just young black generation thats young people in general.  I think they care less about there history and more about what the newest music star tweets.  They become "outraged" because they are told to by the tweet they need to be.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> Agreed!  Of course, I think alot of it has to do with the way things are.  When I was a kid and I talked back, misbehaved, etc, I'd get a whack or two on the ***.  That wasn't child abuse, it was discipline.  Fastforward to today.  Do that same thing, and you'll have every jackass within 30ft of you, on their cell phones, calling the cops, reporting child abuse.  Go figure.  Hell, nowadays, the kids themselves will threaten to call the cops.  I dont know if this has happened to you where you work, but there've been numerous times, when I've taken calls from parents who call to say their kids aren't listening to them.  So they (the parents), call the cops in hopes that they'll scare the kids into behaving.
> 
> Yup, its a sad situation.



Last time I got sent to a call where the kid called because the parent spanked him I told the parent to spank them again and then told the kid it wasnt abuse and walked out.

Ive also been called by parents because the kid wont go to bed or get up for school or turn off the TV ect.  Its pretty sad.


----------



## Wo Fat

George Zimmerman pled indigence last week at his bond hearing, but it appears that he actually had about $200,000 in a Paypal account.  

 The fact that GZ "misled" the Court about his financial means, goes to his credibility.  Or lack thereof.  It also calls into question Mr. O'Mara's failure to verify his client's financial condition.



> SANFORD -- George Zimmerman declared himself indigent at a bond hearing last week, but now his attorney says he raised more than $200,000 from donations from the public.Attorney Mark O&#8217;Mara told CNN&#8217;s Anderson Cooper that he will disclose that Friday to Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester.​



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/27/2770968/zimmerman-attorney-to-tell-judge.html#storylink=cpy​


----------



## crushing

Wo Fat said:


> George Zimmerman pled indigence last week at his bond hearing, but it appears that he actually had about $200,000 in a Paypal account.
> 
> The fact that GZ "misled" the Court about his financial means, goes to his credibility. Or lack thereof. It also calls into question Mr. O'Mara's failure to verify his client's financial condition.
> Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/27/2770968/zimmerman-attorney-to-tell-judge.html#storylink=cpy​



According to the article, at the time of the bond hearing there was $150,000 in the account, not the $200,000 that you claim.  Also according to the article to which you linked, it appears neither the judge, prosecution, nor the defense are quite sure if this money is actually available to the defense.

Again from the article, "I&#8217;m not certain he thought they were available to him, because even after bond was granted, it was the family trying to come up with enough money for the bond. If they thought they had full easy access to it, they simply could have used that."  -Mark O&#8217;Mara


----------



## Wo Fat

crushing said:


> According to the article, at the time of the bond hearing there was $150,000 in the account, not the $200,000 that you claim.  Also according to the article to which you linked, it appears neither the judge, prosecution, nor the defense are quite sure if this money is actually available to the defense.
> 
> Again from the article, "Im not certain he thought they were available to him, because even after bond was granted, it was the family trying to come up with enough money for the bond. If they thought they had full easy access to it, they simply could have used that."  -Mark OMara



There was actually $204,000 in the account.  Zimmerman was "certain" that he could spend the money, and he did.  Five thousand bucks went toward bond, and the rest -- nearly $50,000 toward "living expenses".  The judge in this case is allowing him to keep the $150K for now, and will decide what if anything he can order as to its disposition.

Practically speaking, it's Zimmerman's money.  He can do with it what he sees fit.  But claiming to be indigent, while he knew that he had ready access to nearly a quarter million dollars--and then proceeding to spend it without seeking legal advice--calls his (and his family's) honesty into question.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justice/florida-zimmerman-money/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


----------



## ballen0351

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...h-hate-crime-charge-in-trayvon-martin-death/1
George Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watchman from Florida charged in the killing of unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin, could face federal hate crime charges, WFTV out of Orlando reports.
If Zimmerman, now charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting death, is convicted of a hate crime, he could face the death penalty. The Justice Department says it has been investigating all aspects of this case, including the question of hate crime charges, since earlier this year.
*Update at 12:28 p.m. ET:* USA TODAY's Kevin Johnson reports the Justice Department has been investigating all aspects of Trayvon's shooting since March -- from whether the Sanford police acted properly to whether hate crime charges should be brought against Zimmerman.
"The independent investigation remains ongoing, and we continue to provide support and resources to the local prosecution,'' Justice spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said Tuesday.


----------



## ballen0351

The special prosecutor for the killing of Trayvon Martin has filed court documents that include a witness list and some of the evidence to be used in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman.
*Update at 5:52 p.m. ET*: Special Prosecutor Angela Corey's office has filed documents with the Seminole County clerk that include a partial list of witnesses and evidence -- including new video -- to be used in the trial of George Zimmerman, the _Orlando Sentinel _reports.
Most names were redacted, but six civilians were listed, including Trayvon Martin's parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin; George Zimmerman's father, Robert, and a neighbor. The document listed 18 Sanford police officers as primary witnesses.
Evidence includes new video from the night of the Feb. 26 shooting from the 7-Eleven where Trayvon purchased Skittles and Arizona iced tea, and from the clubhouse of Retreat at Twin Lakes, the apartment complex in Sanford, Fla., where he was killed.
In addition, the prosecutor lists phone records from Zmmerman, Trayvon and an unnamed witness. Also listed are Zimmerman's medical records and records of his 2005 arrest and domestic-violence injunctions.
*Original post*: The special prosecutor in the racially charged Trayvon Martin case is likely to hand over evidence to the defense team today for defendant George Zimmerman, 28, the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer charged in the death of the black teen, WKMG in Orlando reports.
Normally, under Florida law, discovery is made public when it is given to the defense team, according to WKMG.
But Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's defense attorney, told WKMG the public release of the documents should be delayed to allow time for removal of witnesses names.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of Martin, 17, on Feb. 26. He has said he shot the unarmed teen in self-defense, WKMG reports.


----------



## Master Dan

Wo Fat said:


> Not sure what Black Americans and the Democratic Party (purged 30+ years ago of its Dixiecrats and Southern strategists) have to do with this particular subject.


As my departed wife when she was bothering a black person said You aint Black why you bother me??? how to white people who have never experienced life the last 50 years as a black person choose to speak for them what they think or feel Eat Me My wife would call Bill's authority and opinion a craker sorry it just makes me laugh


----------



## billc

Martin's knuckles were bruised and the medical report from that night on Zimmerman was released...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/15/Zimmerman-medical-report



> [h=2]The medical report from George Zimmermans family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmermans nose was broken; he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury. He was examined by the doctor the day after the shooting. The three-page medical report will likely be used as evidence for the defense.[/h]Meanwhile, the Trayvon Martin autopsy shows that other than his gunshot wound, the only injury on Martin was that the skin on his knuckles was broken. Combined with the evidence from Zimmerman's medical report, the logical conclusion is that Martin was beating up Zimmerman severely before Zimmerman shot him.



As the report points out, this latest is from ABC news so it could very well not be accurate...


----------



## billc

More on Martin's autopsy...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...sy-Reveals-Trayvon-Martin-Had-Drugs-in-System



> [h=2]ABC News reports that Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on Feb. 26, had drugs in his body on the night of his death:[/h]The autopsy report shows traces of the drug THC, which is found in marijuana, in Martin's blood and urine.​


----------



## Wo Fat

A March 13, 2012 _Capias Request_ indicates ...

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was *ultimately avoidable* by Zimmerman,* if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement*, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern" the request said. "*There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity*."

​http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=us_c1


----------



## d1jinx

ABC NEWS said:
			
		

> The autopsy also shows that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of between 1 inch and 18 inches away, bolstering Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin during a close struggle.
> Martin's autopsy report also revealed that there was a quarter-inch by half-inch abrasion on the left fourth finger of Martin, another indication of a possible struggle.
> The teen, who lived in Miami, was in Sanford while serving a suspension for an empty marijuana bag discovered in his possession. Martin had THC, the drug found in marijuana, in his blood on the night of his death, according to the autopsy. His family told ABC News that it was "trace amounts" of THC.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...orge-zimmerman/story?id=16371852#.T7VnbsVOgk5


----------



## zDom

Wo Fat said:


> A March 13, 2012 _Capias Request_ indicates ...
> 
> "..."*There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity*."​




That is, up until the moment he assaulted Zimmerman for following him.

Following someone isn't a crime. Following someone does not justify an assault, either.


​


----------



## zDom

Finding THC has no bearing on the incident other than showing, again, that Trayvon wasn't the 12 year old sweet angel as depicted by the media when the story broke.

I wonder, however, if Zimmerman has cause for a defamation lawsuit against the media that heavily skewed this story to make him look like a racist vigilante.


----------



## crushing

Wo Fat said:


> A March 13, 2012 _Capias Request_ indicates ...
> 
> "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was *ultimately avoidable* by Zimmerman,* if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement*, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern" the request said. "*There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity*."
> 
> ​http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=us_c1




Was the quote above taken out of a more expanded opinion of the events?  I can't help but wonder if Martin had beat Zimmerman to death if the entire onus to avoid the situation would have been put on Martin, simply because he happened to be the one to make it out alive.


----------



## d1jinx

crushing said:


> I can't help but wonder if Martin had beat Zimmerman to death if the entire onus to avoid the situation would have been put on Martin, simply because he happened to be the one to make it out alive.



the story would have never hit the national media. happens everyday.


----------



## granfire

zDom said:


> I wonder, however, if Zimmerman has cause for a defamation lawsuit against the media that heavily skewed this story to make him look like a racist vigilante.



Like that guy who found the bomb in Atlanta, 1996? Right, good luck.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Like that guy who found the bomb in Atlanta, 1996? Right, good luck.



Richard jewell did win several lawsuits against the media


----------



## shesulsa

crushing said:


> Was the quote above taken out of a more expanded opinion of the events?  I can't help but wonder if Martin had beat Zimmerman to death if the entire onus to avoid the situation would have been put on Martin, simply because he happened to be the one to make it out alive.



That's an excellent question.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Richard jewell did win several lawsuits against the media



did not repair his reputation.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> did not repair his reputation.



Sure it did he went on to be called a hero by GA Gov.  And was able to become a police officer until he died.  He was on Sat night live and had small parts in a few movies as well.


----------



## Wo Fat

crushing said:


> Was the quote above taken out of a more expanded opinion of the events?  I can't help but wonder if Martin had beat Zimmerman to death if the entire onus to avoid the situation would have been put on Martin, simply because he happened to be the one to make it out alive.



Good question.  That particular quote is, as you suggest, part of a compilation of evidence that had been posted here already (Trayvon's bruised knuckles, Zimmerman's nose and head wounds, THC traces in Trayvon's system).  So the quote, at least in my eyes, is specific--and meaningful--but only within the larger context of reported evidence.

As to the second part of the question, given this particular Prosecutor, I very much think the duty to avoid would have been on Martin if the fight had ended in Zimmerman's death.  I say that based on her conviction of a woman in Florida who (a) simply fired a warning shot to neutralize a perceived threat by her boyfriend/husband; and (b) invoked Stand Your Ground as a defense.


----------



## billc

This article looks at the witness who saw martin on top of zimmerman in the "mount," position hitting him MMA style...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-crucial-trayvon-martin-evidence-the-media-wont-repeat/2/

The interesting aspect is some legal analysis about zimmerman getting out of the truck...



> It is undoubtedly true, in hindsight, that if George Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle there would not have been as great a chance of a conflict, but Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson says that is legally irrelevant:
> Getting out of the car, in itself, is not provoking the use of force.  The prosecution would have to show Zimmerman started the fight, not merely that he was in a place he has a right to be.
> Even so,  Zimmerman would have had legal protection even if he initiated contact if the counter-force were deadly or threatened serious bodily harm and there was no way to escape.  There would be a fact issue if, as some reports say, Zimmerman were on the ground being beaten.
> These nuances will be lost in the media blitz, and you will hear how Zimmerman must be guilty because he got out of the car.​Trayvon Martin mounted George Zimmerman and began raining strikes down on him for more than 38 seconds, despite the fact that Zimmerman was clearly beaten and cried for help 14 times during that time period.
> Legally this is where self-defense law, and possibly the stand your ground provision that is part of that law, becomes relevant, and it is the first and only time that it is relevant for either man in this conflict.


----------



## Wo Fat

> _It is undoubtedly true, in hindsight, that if George Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle there would not have been as great a chance of a conflict, but Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson says that is &#8220;_legally irrelevant_&#8220;_



What *is* legally relevant is that Zimmerman already presumed, at minimum, that Trayvon was (a) a crime suspect, and (b) a crime suspect who looked like he was on drugs.  For Zimmerman, then, to pursue what he presumed was a crime suspect on drugs, and then leave the safety of his vehicle despite a warning not to ... placed him in a position that could or would render him in a position to defend himself with his firearm. 

"State of mind".  And it's very relevant.


----------



## ballen0351

Whats also legally relevent is that zimmerman had the same legal right to be where he was as martin did.  Its not a crine to follow someone .  It is a crine to mount someone and bash their head into the pavment.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> Whats also legally relevent is that zimmerman had the same legal right to be where he was as martin did.  Its not a crine to follow someone .  It is a crine to mount someone and bash their head into the pavment.



That both had a right to be where they were, is an undisputed fact.  

Contrary to unpopular belief though, it may well be that _Martin_ feared for _his_ safety and stood _his_ ground, armed only with his fists.


----------



## MJS

Wo Fat said:


> A March 13, 2012 _Capias Request_ indicates ...
> 
> "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was *ultimately avoidable* by Zimmerman,* if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement*, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern" the request said. "*There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity*."
> 
> ​http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=us_c1



I was just getting ready to post this.  Beat me to it.   This is something that I've been saying all along.  And yes, as its been said and seems to be the typical reply....its not illegal to follow someone....or is it?  Could this be harassment or stalking?  What I find interesting is that many will say, if you're getting mugged, cooperate, don't resist, etc.  I assume thats being said so as to not provoke the situation anymore than it already is.  So, IMO, I'd say the same would apply here....why do something to further provoke the situation?  Was TM in the wrong for hitting GZ?  Yes and no....depending on what GZ did.  Me...I'd probably have turned around and asked why the hell you're following me.  

Due to this thread being so long, forgive me if this was already asked/answered, but if Martin wasn't doing anything other than just passing thru, then IMO, GZ is harassing Martin.  I take calls all the time from people, who claim there're a group of black kids hanging out on the corner.  What're they doing?  Nothing, just hanging around.  Oh, so SWB?  (Standing While Black)  Really people....you can't seem to do anything anymore without someone thinking the worst.  Have I seen cars and people in my condo complex, that I've never seen before?  Sure have.  Do I call the cops?  No.  Nor do I walk out to see whats going on.  Could they been staking out the area for a burglary?  Sure.  But ya know what?  Once my head hits the pillow, all the cars and people in the world can come by and I'd never know.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47476961/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/

 "or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the report said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."
"An anonymous police tipster, meanwhile, suggested that Zimmerman could be confrontational, especially against black people. Zimmerman, who is part-Hispanic, has been described by family members as a social activist who cared about minorities and the downtrodden.
"I don't at all know who this kid was or anything else, the unnamed caller called told police shortly after the shooting. But I know George, and I know that he does not like black people. He would start something. He's very confrontational. It's in his blood. We'll just say that.


----------



## MJS

> It is undoubtedly true, in hindsight, that if George Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle there would not have been as great a chance of a conflict, but Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson says that is 





> legally irrelevant:
> Getting out of the car, in itself, is not provoking the use of force.  The prosecution would have to show Zimmerman started the fight, not merely that he was in a place he has a right to be.​




I'm not a lawyer, but I'm curious...how is him getting out of the car, legally irrelevant?  Isn't that provoking the situation?  Lets say its road rage.  I pull into the parking lot, the guy who thinks I cut him off, follows me in.  Badguy either gets out of or stays in his car, and begins to make threats, yelling, etc.  I get out of my car, vs. driving away.  I'd be willing to bet if I were to get out, I'd be asked why...why didn't you just drive away Mike?  If I get out and yell, I'm provoking a response from this guy, and chances are, he'll get out of his car too.  ​


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Sure it did he went on to be called a hero by GA Gov.  And was able to become a police officer until he died.  He was on Sat night live and had small parts in a few movies as well.



A day late, a dollar short and somewhere on page 35...SNL....

Oh, well. I do concede, they might be bigger news than CNN and Fox combined, one step behind the Daily Show and Colbert....


----------



## Wo Fat

It might be a small piece of evidence, and I'm not sure which side it would help--if at all:

If the convenience store clerk was called to testify at trial about Trayvon Martin's demeanor and behavior in the store, I wonder what he would say?


----------



## crushing

> Trayvon Martin mounted George Zimmerman and began raining strikes down on him for more than 38 seconds, despite the fact that Zimmerman was clearly beaten and cried for help 14 times during that time period.
> Legally this is where self-defense law, and possibly the stand your ground provision that is part of that law, becomes relevant, and it is the first and only time that it is relevant for either man in this conflict.



Maybe I don't completely understand "stand your ground."  It seems to me if one person is on his back and other person is in a dominate position and raining down fists that could cause great damage up to and including death, how is the person getting beaten up in a position to retreat?  Doesn't "stand your ground" only come in to the discussion if there is a reasonable possibility of or opportunity to retreat?  I can understand a case for stand your ground if a person in the same situation used lethal force before being taken to the ground and beaten to death.


----------



## d1jinx

Wo Fat said:


> If the convenience store clerk was called to testify at trial about Trayvon Martin's demeanor and behavior in the store, I wonder what he would say?



he was high and had the munchies.

speculating of course.:ultracool


----------



## shesulsa

d1jinx said:


> he was high and had the munchies.
> 
> speculating of course.:ultracool



Right, and people like that deserve to die.


----------



## granfire

shesulsa said:


> Right, and people like that deserve to die.



:lfao:

the question was what the store clerk remembered.....

if anything past 'he was the 10th guy in a hoodie coming in, nope didn't see much of his face, could have been him, or not' 

buying canned iced tea ought to be a crime though.....


----------



## shesulsa

I know, I know. It's been a long week. ;-)


----------



## punisher73

MJS said:


> "An anonymous police tipster, meanwhile, suggested that Zimmerman could be confrontational, especially against black people. Zimmerman, who is part-Hispanic, has been described by family members as a social activist who cared about minorities and the downtrodden.
> "I don't at all know who this kid was or anything else,&#8221; the unnamed caller called told police shortly after the shooting. &#8220;But I know George, and I know that he does not like black people. He would start something. He's very confrontational. It's in his blood. We'll just say that.&#8221;



So much for your right to confront your accusers.  I like how the media allows "anonymous" people to say crap like that.  What would have happened if an "anonymous caller" said that they knew Martin and that he was always casing neighborhoods to steal stuff?

The jury is only going to see/hear evidence in the trial.  The newsmedia is already trying this case through their editorials...I mean reporting.  They are reporting news, they are reporting gossip.  EVERY little tid bit of info they get whether it can be confirmed or not is plastered on the "news".  The more important question is, right or wrong for his actions, do you (general for everyone, not anyone particular) think that Zimmerman can get a fair trial now?  Also, if Zimmerman is acquited because almost everything we are hearing is hearsay and NOT admissible as evidence, does anyone really think that the system worked because it was so tainted by the media?  The media is trying to create dissension and drama with this story and it has nothing to do with justice.


----------



## punisher73

d1jinx said:


> he was high and had the munchies.
> 
> speculating of course.:ultracool



Well according to the latest gossip...I mean news, Martin had THC in his system.


----------



## Wo Fat

punisher73 said:


> So much for your right to confront your accusers.  I like how the media allows "anonymous" people to say crap like that.  What would have happened if an "anonymous caller" said that they knew Martin and that he was always casing neighborhoods to steal stuff?
> 
> The jury is only going to see/hear evidence in the trial.  The newsmedia is already trying this case through their editorials...I mean reporting.  They are reporting news, they are reporting gossip.  EVERY little tid bit of info they get whether it can be confirmed or not is plastered on the "news".  The more important question is, right or wrong for his actions, do you (general for everyone, not anyone particular) think that Zimmerman can get a fair trial now?  Also, if Zimmerman is acquited because almost everything we are hearing is hearsay and NOT admissible as evidence, does anyone really think that the system worked because it was so tainted by the media?  The media is trying to create dissension and drama with this story and it has nothing to do with justice.



While I have been critical of Zimmerman and his actions, I don't put much stock in this particular witness' media statements, any more than I put stock in that wierdo Joe Oliver. 

Can Zimmerman get a fair trial?  Well, he was granted bail.  And after he admitted to misleading the court about having six figures in the bank, he was allowed to remain on bond.  I'd say the court is doing OK in the "fairness" department so far.  If Zimmerman is acquitted, it will be because the prosecution didn't prove its case with the evidence they have--which is probably more than they have in many garden variety "street" murder cases.  Yes, the media brought this case to prominence.  It needed to be.  Did they move too fast in some areas?  Sure.  But that doesn't change the facts that an adult killed a teen in circumstances that rise to a level of being highly suspicious and likely unnecessary.


----------



## MJS

punisher73 said:


> So much for your right to confront your accusers. I like how the media allows "anonymous" people to say crap like that. What would have happened if an "anonymous caller" said that they knew Martin and that he was always casing neighborhoods to steal stuff?



Yeah, I know.  I deal with anonymous people every day.  Unfortunately, I have to treat their calls, despite how much BS I can detect, just like I have to do with those callers that give their name.  Of course, as I said earlier in this thread, I have to wonder if there was actually a witness that saw the entire incident, start to finish.  Actually, there are witnesses, 2 of them in fact....Martin and Zimmerman.  Martin is dead, can't use his side.  Zimmerman...well, we'll never know whether or not he's lying or telling the truth.  Even if GZ was in the wrong, he'd be a total fool say that he did anything wrong.  He's going to make himself seem like the innocent victim, whether he was or was not.  



> The jury is only going to see/hear evidence in the trial. The newsmedia is already trying this case through their editorials...I mean reporting. They are reporting news, they are reporting gossip. EVERY little tid bit of info they get whether it can be confirmed or not is plastered on the "news". The more important question is, right or wrong for his actions, do you (general for everyone, not anyone particular) think that Zimmerman can get a fair trial now? Also, if Zimmerman is acquited because almost everything we are hearing is hearsay and NOT admissible as evidence, does anyone really think that the system worked because it was so tainted by the media? The media is trying to create dissension and drama with this story and it has nothing to do with justice.



Yes, the media always puts an interesting spin on things..lol.  And sadly, we'll probably never know the real story.


----------



## punisher73

Wo Fat said:


> While I have been critical of Zimmerman and his actions, I don't put much stock in this particular witness' media statements, any more than I put stock in that wierdo Joe Oliver.
> 
> Can Zimmerman get a fair trial? Well, he was granted bail. And after he admitted to misleading the court about having six figures in the bank, he was allowed to remain on bond. I'd say *the court is doing OK in the "fairness" department so far. If Zimmerman is acquitted, it will be because the prosecution didn't prove its case with the evidence they have*--which is probably more than they have in many garden variety "street" murder cases. Yes, the media brought this case to prominence. It needed to be. Did they move too fast in some areas? Sure. But that doesn't change the facts that an adult killed a teen in circumstances that rise to a level of being highly suspicious and likely unnecessary.



Let's hope it remains that way.  I have seen cases both won and lost due to juries that had nothing to do with the evidence presented because of an emotional response.


----------



## Wo Fat

punisher73 said:


> Let's hope it remains that way.  I have seen cases both won and lost due to juries that had nothing to do with the evidence presented because of an emotional response.



Let's hope the process remains fair ... or let's hope that Zimmerman's acquitted?


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> Let's hope the process remains fair ... or let's hope that Zimmerman's acquitted?



You are insinuating that an acquittal would be a miscarriage of justice....


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> You are insinuating that an acquittal would be a miscarriage of justice....



No.  I was asking for a clarification.  _*I*_ was the one who suggested the possibility of an acquittal.

And even if I did take exception to an acquittal, so what.  I'm as entitled to that reasoning as you are to the contrary.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> No.  I was asking for a clarification.  _*I*_ was the one who suggested the possibility of an acquittal.
> 
> And even if I did take exception to an acquittal, so what.  I'm as entitled to that reasoning as you are to the contrary.



That was not the point.
Yes, you suggested the possibility of an acquittal, but the tone of your post suggests that you already - without further knowledge of the evidence - assume it to be the wrong outcome.

And you are assuming I have any reasoning as to the outcome. 
And however your entitlement, should the man be found not guilt (vs innocent) that would be the final word of the justice system.
(alas, I am assuming that in that case the nation would have to brace for LA style riots...oh goody, something to look forward to)


----------



## Master Dan

granfire said:


> That was not the point.
> Yes, you suggested the possibility of an acquittal, but the tone of your post suggests that you already - without further knowledge of the evidence - assume it to be the wrong outcome.
> 
> And you are assuming I have any reasoning as to the outcome.
> And however your entitlement, should the man be found not guilt (vs innocent) that would be the final word of the justice system.
> (alas, I am assuming that in that case the nation would have to brace for LA style riots...oh goody, something to look forward to)


Sad to say in LA they destroyed most of thier own neighborhood many ethic businesses which the last documetry show i saw a few years ago said that many of the businesses and commercial areas had never recovered from the riots.

Regardless of any posturing for or against Zimerman one fact remains he against orders from dispatch to stay in the car and pursue an unarmed teenager with a gun resulting in his death. How many of you pro or not would do the same? I think not why? because you could get hurt? No becasue inside you know its wrong and wrong gets you hurt financialy physically and legally period. If he survives a criminal charge he will still be vulnerable to a civil wrongful death?


----------



## granfire

Master Dan said:


> Sad to say in LA they destroyed most of thier own neighborhood many ethic businesses which the last documetry show i saw a few years ago said that many of the businesses and commercial areas had never recovered from the riots.


seems like par for the course, really, in retrospect.



> Regardless of any posturing for or against Zimerman one fact remains he against orders from dispatch to stay in the car and pursue an unarmed teenager with a gun resulting in his death. How many of you pro or not would do the same? I think not why? because you could get hurt? No becasue inside you know its wrong and wrong gets you hurt financialy physically and legally period. If he survives a criminal charge he will still be vulnerable to a civil wrongful death?



I suppose
A) it has been established that a dispatcher can't order civilians around and 
B) what the courts decide is still to be seen. both in criminal as well as civil court.

We really don't know a thing, maybe we will never know for sure.


----------



## Wo Fat

Master Dan said:


> Sad to say in LA they destroyed most of thier own neighborhood many ethic businesses which the last documetry show i saw a few years ago said that many of the businesses and commercial areas had never recovered from the riots.
> 
> Regardless of any posturing for or against Zimerman one fact remains he against orders from dispatch to stay in the car and pursue an unarmed teenager with a gun resulting in his death. How many of you pro or not would do the same? I think not why? because you could get hurt? No becasue inside you know its wrong and wrong gets you hurt financialy physically and legally period. If he survives a criminal charge he will still be vulnerable to a civil wrongful death?



Talk of riots are irrelevant.  Just a few people's pathetic efforts at stereotyping.  Don't fall for the okie doke.

Very true with respect to Zimmerman being told to stand down.  And while it wasn't an order from a police officer, it didn't need to be.  At least two juries are going to hear that he was told not to follow.  It won't matter to those juries whether it was an order from a cop or a dispatcher.  

Even if Zimmerman is convicted, I think he will still be sued.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> Talk of riots are irrelevant.  Just a few people's pathetic efforts at stereotyping.  Don't fall for the okie doke.



Considering the violence that has been perpetrated in the name of 'Justice for Trayvon Martin' I would be hugely surprised if the police were not to gear up while awaiting the verdict. 
As they were in somewhat vaguely similar publicly hyped cases. 

And if the verdict is not guilty, and if the mob is rioting, I will gleefully point and laugh at you.
naturally should no riot occur upon an acquittal, feel free do do likewise.

The best indicator for future behavior is past behavior.


----------



## Cryozombie

Master Dan said:


> How many of you pro or not would do the same? I think not why? because you could get hurt? No becasue inside you know its wrong and wrong gets you hurt financialy physically and legally period.



Let me pose a related question, to everyone, not Just Dan.  Lets say you ****ed up and found yourself in this position.  Maybe you thought you were doing the right thing, maybe you were just trying to be a tough guy... whatever, now **** has gone south, this guy is on top of you pounding your skull into the pavement, no one is responding to your cries for help and you think "ohshitohshitohshitohshitImgonnadie".

How many of you would go "Well, I ****ed up by following him, so this is my fault I deserve to die" and let him kill you?

How many of you would Shoot to save yourselves?

OR: To put it another way: Just because Zimmerman was a douchebag who doesn't listen, did he deserve to be killed by Travon?


----------



## Cryozombie

The more I hear about this, the more I'm thinking of the term "Mutual Combatants".


----------



## shesulsa

Cryozombie said:


> Let me pose a related question, to everyone, not Just Dan.  Lets say you ****ed up and found yourself in this position.  Maybe you thought you were doing the right thing, maybe you were just trying to be a tough guy... whatever, now **** has gone south, this guy is on top of you pounding your skull into the pavement, no one is responding to your cries for help and you think "ohshitohshitohshitohshitImgonnadie".
> 
> How many of you would go "Well, I ****ed up by following him, so this is my fault I deserve to die" and let him kill you?
> 
> How many of you would Shoot to save yourselves?
> 
> OR: To put it another way: Just because Zimmerman was a douchebag who doesn't listen, did he deserve to be killed by Travon?



No - but he deserves to pay for his douchebaginess.  Because he KNEW he effed up. He KNEW he was going against what he should do.  There was just NO REASON to tail this guy, cops were on the way. Zimmerman reported that he was walking around looking high with something in his hands. This just doesn't sound like a situation I would want to approach unless it looked like he was clearly engaged in some kind of activity that was blatantly illegal or dangerous.  He didn't deserve to get killed by Trayvon ... but he still screwed up and should pay for it.


----------



## crushing

Wo Fat said:


> Very true with respect to Zimmerman being told to stand down. And while it wasn't an order from a police officer, it didn't need to be. At least two juries are going to hear that he was told not to follow. It won't matter to those juries whether it was an order from a cop or a dispatcher.
> 
> Even if Zimmerman is convicted, I think he will still be sued.



"We don't need you to do that" means different things to different people.  I think you are correct that a lawyer may be able to convince a jury that this statement should have been understood by Zimmerman to be an order or request to stand down.  That may not matter if the evidence shows that Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle at the time that he was beaten.


----------



## granfire

shesulsa said:


> No - but he deserves to pay for his douchebaginess.  Because he KNEW he effed up. He KNEW he was going against what he should do.  There was just NO REASON to tail this guy, cops were on the way. Zimmerman reported that he was walking around looking high with something in his hands. This just doesn't sound like a situation I would want to approach unless it looked like he was clearly engaged in some kind of activity that was blatantly illegal or dangerous.  He didn't deserve to get killed by Trayvon ... but he still screwed up and should pay for it.



Well, I suppose it remains to be seen if he was douche baggy. Or if douche bag met douche nozzle....

If the person he followed would have turned out to be one of the burglars - aside from not making the news - he would be the neighborhood's hero....


----------



## MJS

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...120522_1_witnesses-change-shooting-fdle-agent



> Evidence released last week in the second-degree-murder case against George Zimmerman shows four key witnesses made major changes in what they say they saw and heard the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford.
> Three changed their stories in ways that may damage Zimmerman. A fourth abandoned her initial story, that she saw one person chasing another. Now, she says, she saw a single figure running.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were reinterviewed in mid-March, after Sanford police handed the case off to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. The case changed hands again when Gov. Rick Scott passed it on to a special prosecutor. Zimmerman was arrested April 11 on a charge of second-degree murder.
> Here are the key ways in which their stories changed.
> *
> Witness 2*
> A young woman who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Trayvon was shot*, *was interviewed twice by Sanford police and once by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
> She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident*. *In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."
> She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."
> A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.
> That all changed when she was reinterviewed March 20 by an FDLE agent. Thattime, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told FDLE Investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.
> "I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses.  I just know I saw a person out there."
> *
> Witness 12*
> A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.
> During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.
> "I don't know which one.  All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors," she said.
> Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," she said.
> *
> Witness 6*
> This witnesslived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," a reference to mixed martial arts.
> He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman.
> But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.
> "I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk," he said.
> He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.
> He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.
> "The black guy was on top," he said.
> *
> Witness 13*
> He is important because he talked with Zimmerman and watched the way he behaved immediately after the shooting, before police arrived.
> After this neighbor heard gunfire, he went outside and spotted Zimmerman standing there with"blood on the back of his head," he told Sanford police thenight of the shooting.
> Zimmermantold him that Trayvon "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him," the witness told Serino. The Neighborhood Watch captain then asked the witness to call his wife, Shellie Zimmerman, and tell her what happened.
> In two subsequent interviews about a month later  one with an FDLE investigator and one with de la Rionda  the witness described Zimmerman's demeanor in greater detail, adding that he spoke as if the shooting were no big deal.
> Zimmerman's tone, the witness said,was "not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!'  it was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody ,' like it was nothing."
> Those witnesses are likely to be interviewed at least once more before Zimmerman's trial. Defense attorneys in Florida routinely question witnesses under oath as they prepare for trial.



Hmm...so much for the supposed eye witness testimony.  When I was reading this story in my local paper, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Why did they change their stories?"  Were they scared into making the changes by someone?  Did they change their stories after they thought, "Gee, if I dont say the right thing, I may be a target."  Did they realize, after all was said and done, that perhaps they honestly made a mistake with their inital stories?  Who knows, and we'll probably never know.


----------



## Wo Fat

MJS said:


> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...120522_1_witnesses-change-shooting-fdle-agent
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...so much for the supposed eye witness testimony.  When I was reading this story in my local paper, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Why did they change their stories?"  Were they scared into making the changes by someone?  Did they change their stories after they thought, "Gee, if I dont say the right thing, I may be a target."  Did they realize, after all was said and done, that perhaps they honestly made a mistake with their inital stories?  Who knows, and we'll probably never know.



Sometimes people get a little caught up in the "media event".  Take for instance, Witness 12 who always believed that it was Zimmerman on top because media had us believing that Trayvon was still 14 years old.  It made sense to her--at the time--that Zimmerman was probably the bigger guy.  In reality, it may have been the other way around.

And sometimes people just realize that the stakes are too high to be wrong or embellishing.


----------



## billc

Here is a look at the witnesses and their changes...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...itnesses-changed-testimony-after-media-frenzy


> Another witness said on March 20 that she saw two people on the ground after the shots were fired and was not sure who was on top: I don't know which one  All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on March 26, her memory suddenly cleared; she told the trial prosecutor that she was sure it was Zimmerman on top. And how did she suddenly remember with such clarity? I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size, she said.
Click to expand...


----------



## Master Dan

Cryozombie said:


> Let me pose a related question, to everyone, not Just Dan.  Lets say you ****ed up and found yourself in this position.  Maybe you thought you were doing the right thing, maybe you were just trying to be a tough guy... whatever, now **** has gone south, this guy is on top of you pounding your skull into the pavement, no one is responding to your cries for help and you think "ohshitohshitohshitohshitImgonnadie".
> 
> How many of you would go "Well, I ****ed up by following him, so this is my fault I deserve to die" and let him kill you?
> 
> How many of you would Shoot to save yourselves?
> 
> OR: To put it another way: Just because Zimmerman was a douchebag who doesn't listen, did he deserve to be killed by Travon?



Exactly you make my point!! to carry a fire arm as a non law enforcement person carries risk for you period not just the other person!! The mature MA person looks to avoid confrontation not just out of a moral code but common sense of what the risks are and why do it if its not necessary I am far more worried in 9 out of 10 cases about my hurting the other person unless multiple people with deadly force then all bets off. One person gets punched a single time paralized for life from hips down another trips and falls hits head and dies that is the potential to happen in every case from the time you open your mouth in confrontation go ahead do what you want what you think but don'w whine about it later becasue you put yourself in harms way.


----------



## WC_lun

To me there were bad decisions made all the way around here.  Zimmerman should have left well enough alone after he called the cops, as the dispatcher suggested.  Martin should not have turned to confront the fellow following him and just went home.  Because of those bad decisions a young man is dead.  It surely is a life lesson for anyone paying attention.  Sometimes you don't get to go "Oops! My bad!" and go on as if nothing happened.  Some decisions are life changing without a redo button.

I do not know if there is anything criminal in Zimmerman's actions.  I think they were less than smart, but that isn't neccesarily the same thing.  That is why we have a court system.  Let them do thier job.


----------



## crushing

Wo Fat said:


> And sometimes people just realize that the stakes are too high to be wrong or embellishing.



And other times the stakes are too high to be right.

That's from 22+ years of marital experience.


----------



## billc

Some more possible info. that discredits the zimmerman as racist idea...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...e-Zimmerman-Black-Homeless-Man-Sanford-Police



> We're learning today that just last year, at a public forum, George Zimmerman publicly testified against the Sanford police department in defense of a homeless black man. In other words, what we have here is more proof that the media narrative surrounding the shooting of Trayvon Martin might just end up being the most disgraced and failed media narrative since Duke-LaCrosse and the Tuscon murders.





> George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer.
> "I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white," Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum. "It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line."
> The forum took place on Jan. 8, 2011, days after a video of the beating went viral on the Internet and then-Sanford Police Chief Brian Tooley was forced to retire. Tooley's department faced criticism for dragging its feet in arresting Justin Collison, the son of a police lieutenant.​The media narrative fail here is a triple shot. If Zimmerman is supposedly some kind of yee-haw law and order type eager to play racist cop, why in the world would he publicly accuse the Sanford police of corruption with a special emphasis on the Chief -- all in defense of a homeless black man beaten by the white son of a white Sanford police officer. It's not like someone threw a microphone in Zimmerman's  face either. He proactively went to, attended, and spoke out at this meeting:"I'd like to know what action the commission is taking in order to repeal Mr. Tooley's pension," Zimmerman said to the commission. "I'm not asking you to repeal his pension; I believe he's already forfeited his pension by his illegal cover-up in corruption in what happened in his department."​The third corner in this triangle of media narrative fail is that after Trayvon was shot and killed, many in the media questioned Zimmerman's supposed "cozy relationship" with the Sanford police -- that this had something to do with Zimmerman not being charged with a crime.



I have also heard that Zimmerman's grandfather is an african american, has this been verified?


----------



## billc

A new look at the timeline of the shooting...and Trayvon Martin...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/what_the_media_choose_not_to_know_about_trayvon.html



> The sites I have found must useful are the _Daily Caller_ and _theconservativetreehouse.com_.  What follows is largely culled from those sites and their independent contributors.  By probing Trayon's background and parsing his social media chatter, they have put together a picture of a disturbed young man that begins to makes sense of the events that unfolded on that fateful rainy night of February 26.


----------



## Grenadier

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep this conversation civil.  Remember, you are allowed to attack the message, but not the one delivering the message.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## billc

The latest...a video description from the police that they took with Zimmerman the day after the shooting...pretty interesting in that it is a video of Zimmerman, in his own words, recounting the incident the very next day...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-reenactment-trayvon-martin-shooting/story?id=16616864#.T-MtJFJ7SuJ




> The latest and most detailed account yet of what happened in Sanford,  Fla., on Feb. 26 comes from a voice stress test that Zimmerman passed,  along with a video re-enactment, a handwritten statement and audio  interviews conducted in the days after the shooting by investigators.
> 
> The material was released by Zimmerman's attorney today on the website gzlegalcase.com, a website managed by the Zimmerman defense team.


----------



## MJS

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-usa-floridashooting-pixl2e8hqgrc-20120626,0,6855022,full.story

Gee, imagine that.



> MIAMI, June 26 (Reuters) - George Zimmerman, the man charged
> in the killing of Trayvon Martin, failed on at least two
> opportunities to identify himself as a neighborhood watch
> volunteer before he shot the unarmed teenager, a police
> investigator wrote in a report made public on Tuesday.
> 
> Pages of the report were among a batch of new evidence
> released in the case by Florida's state attorney's office. The
> records included video and audio recordings of Zimmerman and
> written statements by him and police.
> 
> Zimmerman, 28, shot and killed Martin, 17, during a
> confrontation in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, on Feb.
> 26. Martin was walking back from a store when Zimmerman called a
> 911 dispatcher and said the teen looked suspicious and then
> followed him.
> 
> Zimmerman is being held in a Florida jail charged with
> second-degree murder and faces 25 years to life if convicted. No
> trial date has been set yet.
> 
> In a report detailing the police investigation into the
> shooting, Sanford Police Detective Christopher Serino wrote that
> Zimmerman "had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon
> Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding
> their encounter."


----------



## jks9199

Did he have some sort of duty to identify himself as any sort of volunteer?  Of course, that also lead to the question of whether or not Trayvon Martin had any duty or responsibility to identify himself to Zimmerman, too...


----------



## MJS

jks9199 said:


> Did he have some sort of duty to identify himself as any sort of volunteer?  Of course, that also lead to the question of whether or not Trayvon Martin had any duty or responsibility to identify himself to Zimmerman, too...



Don't know if its part of the Florida neighborhood watch program, to ID him/her self.  However, it would only make sense (yeah, I know, common sense is lacking more often than not!)  especially if you're in plain clothes with nothing to immediately identify yourself as a LEO, security, etc, ie: such as a uniform would, to announce yourself, rather than just walk up behind someone.


----------



## Tez3

When they set the trial date how much of it will the public get to see for themselves or will the evidence given just be what's reported in the press?
Must admit I don't understand why so much of the witnesses statements etc are being allowed to be printed or broadcast, surely it's sub judice or don't you have that? Here that begins as soon as someone is arrested, it's not a gagging order but a device to allow as fair a trial as possible. Justice takes precedence over a public's right to be scandalised and tittilated by gossip and speculation. We could demand that we are told all the tittle tattle but if it were us in the dock I doubt we'd insist on the public's 'right to know' what colour underwear we wore etc etc.We'd want a fair trial. It seems that both people involved in this case have been tried and found guilty, both have been tried and found innocent depending on the political stance of the person reading the media output. Is there any chance of a fair trial now?


----------



## granfire

Very good question.

And with the coverage this case has gotten, the next county is not a guarantee for an untainted jury pool.


----------



## billc

The first "opportunity," was when Martin passed by his truck, and the other one was right before Zimmerman says the assault started.  If Zimmerman was surprised to find Martin in front of him, it wouldn't be a stretch to think he wouldn't have had the thought to say he was a member of the watch.  The first opportunity?  The guy passed by his vehicle, and Zimmerman called 911 which avoided an actual confrontation, which goes to Zimmerman not wanting to directly deal with Martin.  Only later, when Martin apparently surprised Zimmerman, was there a confilict.


----------



## punisher73

MJS said:


> Don't know if its part of the Florida neighborhood watch program, to ID him/her self.  However, it would only make sense (yeah, I know, common sense is lacking more often than not!)  especially if you're in plain clothes with nothing to immediately identify yourself as a LEO, security, etc, ie: such as a uniform would, to announce yourself, rather than just walk up behind someone.



From the dispatch tapes, he was never close enough to talk with him until Martin came back to confront him.  Zimmerman tells the dispatch that "he ran" and didn't know where he went.  Martin was close enough to the house he was staying at that he could have just went there safely.  Martin came back to confront Zimmerman, who knows why Zimmerman didn't try and identify himself then.  But, like someone else pointed out.  If you have an aggressive person coming at you, you might not think about it.


----------



## shesulsa

Or if you have an aggressive person stalking or following you ....

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## punisher73

shesulsa said:


> Or if you have an aggressive person stalking or following you ....
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2



How is that following, when the person stops and tells dispatch that he doesn't know where the guy ran, and is heading back to his truck.  The other person forgoes going home to safety and then circles around to confront the other person?


----------



## MJS

punisher73 said:


> From the dispatch tapes, he was never close enough to talk with him until Martin came back to confront him.  Zimmerman tells the dispatch that "he ran" and didn't know where he went.  Martin was close enough to the house he was staying at that he could have just went there safely.  Martin came back to confront Zimmerman, who knows why Zimmerman didn't try and identify himself then.  But, like someone else pointed out.  If you have an aggressive person coming at you, you might not think about it.



Forgive me for asking this, as its been a while and this thread is huge, but wasn't there some point in which GZ was close enough to TM to physically see him?  If thats the case, and GZ was that concerned as to who TM was, he probably could've easily yelled to him. Another reason I say this is because IIRC, TM did notice that he was being followed.  Didn't he mention that to his girlfriend, while he was on the phone?  I got the impression that TM knew that someone was behind him, just that he wasn't sure who was following him.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Or if you have an aggressive person stalking or following you ....
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2





punisher73 said:


> How is that following, when the person stops and tells dispatch that he doesn't know where the guy ran, and is heading back to his truck.  The other person forgoes going home to safety and then circles around to confront the other person?



But didn't GZ only say that after he lost sight of TM?  Again, I was under the impression that there was at least 1 time when they were fairly close to each other.


----------



## punisher73

MJS said:


> Forgive me for asking this, as its been a while and this thread is huge, but wasn't there some point in which GZ was close enough to TM to physically see him?  If thats the case, and GZ was that concerned as to who TM was, he probably could've easily yelled to him. Another reason I say this is because IIRC, TM did notice that he was being followed.  Didn't he mention that to his girlfriend, while he was on the phone?  I got the impression that TM knew that someone was behind him, just that he wasn't sure who was following him.



Yes, my point wasn't clear.  GZ followed and then lost TM, who was right at the house he was going to.  GZ then started heading back to his truck, and TM then circled back and then confronted GZ.  Up to this point, there was no confrontation between the two.  If TM would have just gone home instead of playing macho none of this would have happened.


----------



## MJS

punisher73 said:


> Yes, my point wasn't clear.  GZ followed and then lost TM, who was right at the house he was going to.  GZ then started heading back to his truck, and TM then circled back and then confronted GZ.  Up to this point, there was no confrontation between the two.  If TM would have just gone home instead of playing macho none of this would have happened.



I agree.  TM did not have to circle back.  Of course, GZ could have just hung back and called the cops and let them do their jobs.  GZ seems to be well known to the cops, as he seems to have called quite a bit.  I'm sure the cops are familiar with the area, the problems, etc.  I wonder what the odds are, of the cops being even the slightest bit familiar with TM.  My point is...if the cops know who the person is, if GZ knows who the person is, then couldnt the cops just follow up at a later time?


----------



## Tgace

MJS said:


> I agree.  TM did not have to circle back.  Of course, GZ could have just hung back and called the cops and let them do their jobs.  GZ seems to be well known to the cops, as he seems to have called quite a bit.  I'm sure the cops are familiar with the area, the problems, etc.  I wonder what the odds are, of the cops being even the slightest bit familiar with TM.  My point is...if the cops know who the person is, if GZ knows who the person is, then couldnt the cops just follow up at a later time?



Follow up on what? 


It seems that GZ thought that TM was possibly going to commit a burglary or steal a car....or possibly commit some other crime. It wasn't like GZ was trying to tackle TM....just keep him in sight. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## punisher73

MJS said:


> I agree.  TM did not have to circle back.  Of course, GZ could have just hung back and called the cops and let them do their jobs.  GZ seems to be well known to the cops, as he seems to have called quite a bit.  I'm sure the cops are familiar with the area, the problems, etc.  I wonder what the odds are, of the cops being even the slightest bit familiar with TM.  My point is...if the cops know who the person is, if GZ knows who the person is, then couldnt the cops just follow up at a later time?



I don't think GZ knew who it was.  TM was just at the house and didn't live in the neighborhood.  GZ never identified that he knew who TM was and didn't even identify him as a "black male" until much later.  GZ was trying to keep him in sight and lost him and told dispatch as much.


----------



## Wo Fat

punisher73 said:


> Yes, my point wasn't clear.  GZ followed and then lost TM, who was right at the house he was going to.  GZ then started heading back to his truck, and TM then circled back and then confronted GZ.  Up to this point, there was no confrontation between the two.  *If TM would have just gone home instead of playing macho none of this would have happened.*



If GZ--_the_ _adult_ who was asked by the authorities to stand down--had done so, instead of playing macho and acting like Barney Fife on 'roids, then TM--_the minor_ who was in a place where he had a lawful right to be--would not be dead at 17 years young.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> If GZ--_the_ _adult_ who was asked by the authorities to stand down--had done so, instead of playing macho and acting like Barney Fife on 'roids, then TM--_the minor_ who was in a place where he had a lawful right to be--would not be dead at 17 years young.


Zimmerman had a lawful right to be where he was as also.


----------



## Tgace

Wo Fat said:


> If GZ--_the_ _adult_ who was asked by the authorities to stand down--had done so, instead of playing macho and acting like Barney Fife on 'roids, then TM--_the minor_ who was in a place where he had a lawful right to be--would not be dead at 17 years young.



So from now on, if you see something suspicious just ignore it? Is that what you are saying? Maybe call 911 but don't keep the suspicious person in sight because thats "stalking"? Really?


----------



## shesulsa

Sigh *beats dead horse*

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Does anybody *really *know just how close GZ ever was to TM while he was supposedly "stalking" him?


----------



## shesulsa

Close enough for him to tell his girlfriend about it and for Zimmerman to call out to him.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> Follow up on what?
> 
> 
> It seems that GZ thought that TM was possibly going to commit a burglary or steal a car....or possibly commit some other crime. It wasn't like GZ was trying to tackle TM....just keep him in sight.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Many times, if the suspect eludes the cops, but they have an idea who it is, rather than spend fruitless hours trying to catch the guy at that moment, follow up later.  For example...a few days ago at work, we took a call from someone who saw a guy walking around an empty house.  They also heard glass breaking.  They gave us a good description of the guy.  Multiple units, including a K9 went to the scene, yet this guy gave them the slip.  However, going on witness description among other things, they narrowed down the suspect.  Since he gave them the slip at that moment, they were simply going to follow up later, by typing a warrant for the dirtbags arrest.  Well, as luck would have it, they didn't need to go that far, because a few hours later, a cop on patrol, saw the guy, wearing different clothing, and arrested him.

So thats what I meant by follow up later.


----------



## MJS

punisher73 said:


> I don't think GZ knew who it was. TM was just at the house and didn't live in the neighborhood. GZ never identified that he knew who TM was and didn't even identify him as a "black male" until much later. GZ was trying to keep him in sight and lost him and told dispatch as much.



That may very well be the case.  If that area is anything like where I work, we take calls all the time, for suspicious people walking in the area.  I guess the main point is...GZ did not have to do anything more than call it in.  He took it upon himself to follow TM.  This may've been asked/answered before, I dont know, but I'll ask again.  What was TM doing that was suspicious?


----------



## Tgace

I don't know if I want this whole situation to turn into a "dont get involved" scenario. I see nothing wrong with keeping an eye on a suspicious person and relaying that info to the cops. Chasing people through yards or getting involved in car chases? Of course not, but this seems to be getting twisted by peoples preconceptions.


----------



## Tgace

MJS said:


> This may've been asked/answered before, I dont know, but I'll ask again.  What was TM doing that was suspicious?



How would any of us know?


----------



## MJS

Wo Fat said:


> If GZ--_the_ _adult_ who was asked by the authorities to stand down--had done so, instead of playing macho and acting like Barney Fife on 'roids, then TM--_the minor_ who was in a place where he had a lawful right to be--would not be dead at 17 years young.





ballen0351 said:


> Zimmerman had a lawful right to be where he was as also.





Tgace said:


> So from now on, if you see something suspicious just ignore it? Is that what you are saying? Maybe call 911 but don't keep the suspicious person in sight because thats "stalking"? Really?



As I've said, I take these calls DAILY, where I work.  Suspicious m/v, susp. person, you name it.  I take the info, enter the call and send a cop.  However, as we all should know, calls like this, are not a high priority, sad as that may seem.  The public has no conception of anything other than what they're calling for, at that moment.  Those that're LEOs should know and understand that very well.  I've taken calls from people who're following someone suspected of DUI.  I ask for a plate, and if they wish to file an official complaint.  However, I DO NOT encourage them to continue following the car.  I will NOT be held responsible for them driving like an *******, just to keep up with someone who may/may not be drunk.

No, I dont think anyone is against GZ calling the cops.  I could care less...call them 50 times a day, I dont give a ****.  No, my point is, GZ was told not to follow, he disregarded.  He played hero, and ended up losing.  If both parties had every right to be in that area, as so many claim, then what was so suspicious about TM?  Was he guilty of walking while being black?  Standing in an area while being black?  Was the kid just loitering?  Not the crime of the century.  Again, happens daily.  Send a cop, move them along.


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> I don't know if I want this whole situation to turn into a "dont get involved" scenario. I see nothing wrong with keeping an eye on a suspicious person and relaying that info to the cops. Chasing people through yards or getting involved in car chases? Of course not, but this seems to be getting twisted by peoples preconceptions.



Agreed.  By all means, if you someone sees something odd, call it in.  Hell, when people start threads on here, and ask if you'd get involved in a physical disturbance between 2 people,, I'm the first to say no, but instead, call the cops, and be a good witness.  But common sense should also play a part in that.  Don't do something thats going to put your safety at risk, IMO.



Tgace said:


> How would any of us know?



We probably don't. I just figured I'd take a stab and see if anyone knew.  Seems like there're really only 2 people who knew what went on that night...GZ and TM.  One of them is dead, and the other, unless he really was stupid, isn't going to say anything to incriminate himself anymore than he already has.


----------



## billc

As has been pointed out before, he was never told to stop following martin, he was told it wasn't necessary for him to do it and from the 911 call you can apparently here him stop.  That is also the point where he claims to have turned around to go back to his truck and then encountered martin.  Martin, as has been pointed out, may very well have circled back to confront zimmerman, instead of going to his father's girlfriends condo/townhome.   Zimmerman wasn't breaking the law, he lived in the enclosed community and at this point we still don't know for sure who instigated the actual physical violence.


----------



## shesulsa

AND he lied about his ability to post bail and afford an attorney. This angel-of-the-night.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

shesulsa said:


> AND he lied about his ability to post bail and afford an attorney. This angel-of-the-night.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2




Both had dirty wings and stained halos.

Just like real life people....


----------



## crushing

shesulsa said:


> AND he lied about his ability to post bail and afford an attorney. This angel-of-the-night.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2



Yes, previous to the bail being set there was some confusion on the part of the judge and lawyers regarding the availability of the money in a fund that was set up for his defense.  It's obvious now that Zimmerman's counsel should have included the defense fund money, if not along with Zimmerman's assets then on a separate line.  Has he continued with the same lawyer?  How would it look publicly if he dropped his counsel and hired a differe laywer?  It would probably be seen as a negative for GZ.


----------



## jks9199

MJS said:


> No, my point is, GZ was told not to follow, he disregarded.  He played hero, and ended up losing.  If both parties had every right to be in that area, as so many claim, then what was so suspicious about TM?


Was he told "don't follow him" or was he told "we don't need you to do that"?  Very different meanings, no?  

As to what made Zimmerman suspicious?  We probably won't know until the trial.  (I do wonder how they're going to get an untainted jury pool at this point...)


----------



## Wo Fat

MJS said:


> What was TM doing that was suspicious?



Personally, I have no earthly idea.  I haven't heard it in the 911 transcripts, nor have I heard it it news/media accounts.  But it's likely one of the questions that the State of Florida (or United States of America) will be asking.

There'd better be a dam'd good answer.


----------



## shesulsa

jks9199 said:


> Was he told "don't follow him" or was he told "we don't need you to do that"?  Very different meanings, no?



Zimmerman had security training.

When I trained for security we were told, under no uncertain terms, to pay attention to what we were told - that there were clues in what could and could not be said by dispatchers and police/fire. If *I* called 911 and told the dispatcher that I was trying to keep the man in sight, was asked if I was following him, replied in the affirmative, and was told by the dispatcher, 'we don't need for you to do that,'  I would be hearing between the lines that I was being told to fall back ... and I would damn sure do it.

This was a lesson that was hammered into our heads every damn day of training. Am I alone here?


----------



## jks9199

shesulsa said:


> Zimmerman had security training.
> 
> When I trained for security we were told, under no uncertain terms, to pay attention to what we were told - that there were clues in what could and could not be said by dispatchers and police/fire. If *I* called 911 and told the dispatcher that I was trying to keep the man in sight, was asked if I was following him, replied in the affirmative, and was told by the dispatcher, 'we don't need for you to do that,'  I would be hearing between the lines that I was being told to fall back ... and I would damn sure do it.
> 
> This was a lesson that was hammered into our heads every damn day of training. Am I alone here?



It's not consistent with any training I had as a security officer.  Under two different instructors, it was heavily "observe & report."  Emphasis was very much on do not engage -- but do call it in, and do report it.  Often it's stressing continue to observe as long as you can do so safely.  Most neighborhood watch programs are similar.


----------



## Tgace

I believe that Zimmerman's case could either be a good shoot OR a bad one depending on what EVIDENCE is presented. Im not sold that Z is 100% right or truthful here. I hear that detectives wanted to charge Z that night but the DA told them not to. That says something to me.

I'm just arguing that this COULD easily be a clear case of SD if the situation is indeed as Z is trying to suggest. If Z is lying than I hope he gets convicted.

What "gets me" are the people who have already convicted Z based on what they see in the media. They parrot the stalking/skittles/goodies crap and refuse to consider that Z.....regardless of ignoring a dispatchers statement of "we don't need you to do that".... may very well be telling the truth. I think that personal politics and media influenced opinions on race have much to do with it.

I think it would be interesting to mine the forum for some of the threads on what to do after a SD situation..you know the stay/leave....talk to cops/don't talk threads...to see how posters opinions there mesh with this situation. 

Everybody thinks that if they get involved I a SD situation that its gonna be a clear cut case of them being in the right...when this is probably closer to the norm. A cluster.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MJS

jks9199 said:


> Was he told "don't follow him" or was he told "we don't need you to do that"?  Very different meanings, no?
> 
> As to what made Zimmerman suspicious?  We probably won't know until the trial.  (I do wonder how they're going to get an untainted jury pool at this point...)





shesulsa said:


> Zimmerman had security training.
> 
> When I trained for security we were told, under no uncertain terms, to pay attention to what we were told - that there were clues in what could and could not be said by dispatchers and police/fire. If *I* called 911 and told the dispatcher that I was trying to keep the man in sight, was asked if I was following him, replied in the affirmative, and was told by the dispatcher, 'we don't need for you to do that,'  I would be hearing between the lines that I was being told to fall back ... and I would damn sure do it.
> 
> This was a lesson that was hammered into our heads every damn day of training. Am I alone here?





jks9199 said:


> It's not consistent with any training I had as a security officer.  Under two different instructors, it was heavily "observe & report."  Emphasis was very much on do not engage -- but do call it in, and do report it.  Often it's stressing continue to observe as long as you can do so safely.  Most neighborhood watch programs are similar.



I would say that the wording, while different, still has hints of the same meaning.  He asked a question, I'm assuming along the lines of, "I'm following this kid."  If they in fact said 'we dont need you to do that', that, IMO, could easily be taken as stop following the kid.

Now, if there's an emphasis on 'observe and report' I'd also imagine there should be some common sense involved, but we all know thats not exercised by everyone.   I think it would be interesting to know what exactly he was/was not allowed to do under the watch program.


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> I believe that Zimmerman's case could either be a good shoot OR a bad one depending on what EVIDENCE is presented. Im not sold that Z is 100% right or truthful here. I hear that detectives wanted to charge Z that night but the DA told them not to. That says something to me.
> 
> I'm just arguing that this COULD easily be a clear case of SD if the situation is indeed as Z is trying to suggest. If Z is lying than I hope he gets convicted.
> 
> What "gets me" are the people who have already convicted Z based on what they see in the media. They parrot the stalking/skittles/goodies crap and refuse to consider that Z.....regardless of ignoring a dispatchers statement of "we don't need you to do that".... may very well be telling the truth. I think that personal politics and media influenced opinions on race have much to do with it.
> 
> I think it would be interesting to mine the forum for some of the threads on what to do after a SD situation..you know the stay/leave....talk to cops/don't talk threads...to see how posters opinions there mesh with this situation.
> 
> Everybody thinks that if they get involved I a SD situation that its gonna be a clear cut case of them being in the right...when this is probably closer to the norm. A cluster.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Started a new thread.   I look forward to your input. 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?104072-What-Do-You-Do-After&p=1502172#post1502172


----------



## billc

Some new thoughts on zimmerman as the victim of  a hostile police officer...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-zimmerman-evidence-removes-any-doubt/




> Here is the core of this nightmare.  One detective decided, without  evidence, that Zimmerman could not be believed. Chris Serino had no  reliable evidence to support his position but he went ahead and  submitted an affidavit calling for a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Detective Serino ignored the evidence that Martin walked around in  the rain aimlessly looking at houses. He ignored the evidence that  Martin had attacked Zimmerman and threatened to kill him, shouting: &#8220;You  gonna die tonight, M__ F__!&#8221; The detective also ignored the obvious  injuries on Zimmerman&#8217;s face during the interviews.
> The chief of police and the district attorney first decided that  there was not enough evidence to support Serino&#8217;s hunches. Lack of  evidence is a cornerstone rationale for the operation of a civilized  legal system when ethical officials decide not to proceed with a  prosecution.





> After the mob appeared demanding Zimmerman&#8217;s head, the governor  appointed a new special prosecutor, Angela Corey, to handle the case.   She openly talked about &#8220;Dear Trayvon&#8221; and appeared to support the  mob&#8217;s suspicions.
> 
> Zimmerman was then charged.
> Rather than investigate the New Black Panthers or the other criminals  making death threats, teams of FBI agents and local investigators have  been ordered by Eric Holder&#8217;s Justice Department to go around Florida  asking about whether anyone has heard George Zimmerman make racist  comments. You can&#8217;t make this stuff up.


----------



## ballen0351

MJS said:


> I would say that the wording, while different, still has hints of the same meaning.  He asked a question, I'm assuming along the lines of, "I'm following this kid."  If they in fact said 'we dont need you to do that', that, IMO, could easily be taken as stop following the kid.
> 
> Now, if there's an emphasis on 'observe and report' I'd also imagine there should be some common sense involved, but we all know thats not exercised by everyone.   I think it would be interesting to know what exactly he was/was not allowed to do under the watch program.


That's all fine and good but its not a crime to ignore a dispatcher.


----------



## Wo Fat

> _Here is the core of this nightmare. *One detective decided, without evidence, that Zimmerman could not be believed*. _



Apparently, a Florida judge also decided that Zimmerman isn't someone to be believed.  He had the chance to be free on bond, and when it came down to something so important as his freedom--and so simple as telling the truth--Zimmerman couldn't help but lie.

So it's no wonder that one or more detectives observed the same thing: Zimmerman tends to lie.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> That's all fine and good but its not a crime to ignore a dispatcher.



LOL, never said it was.  People ignore what I tell them to do all the time.   However, by not following the advice/suggestions of what he was told, certainly doenst make him look good.


----------



## shesulsa

ballen0351 said:


> That's all fine and good but its not a crime to ignore a dispatcher.





MJS said:


> LOL, never said it was.  People ignore what I tell them to do all the time.   However, by not following the advice/suggestions of what he was told, certainly doenst make him look good.



I believe it will be used to point to the fact that he did his job - observe and report - and had the opportunity to secure his safety at that moment when dispatch told him they didn't need for him to follow Martin.  The audio tapes I listened to *sound like* Zimmerman continued to follow or pursue Martin at that point.  This is the crucial moment for me in this mess. Feel free to disagree, and I'm almost sure he wasn't *looking* to kill someone that night ... but this moment right here carries some weight for me.


----------



## Tgace

shesulsa said:


> I believe it will be used to point to the fact that he did his job - observe and report - and had the opportunity to secure his safety at that moment when dispatch told him they didn't need for him to follow Martin.  The audio tapes I listened to *sound like* Zimmerman continued to follow or pursue Martin at that point.  This is the crucial moment for me in this mess. Feel free to disagree, and I'm almost sure he wasn't *looking* to kill someone that night ... but this moment right here carries some weight for me.



How can you tell if he continued to follow TM...or was walking away from him...by the sound???


----------



## jks9199

Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not?  Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent.  I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.


----------



## elder999

jks9199 said:


> Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not? Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent. I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.




Or forensic evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story............

Or a plea deal.......................

Or any number of other things.


----------



## ballen0351

shesulsa said:


> I believe it will be used to point to the fact that he did his job - observe and report - and had the opportunity to secure his safety at that moment when dispatch told him they didn't need for him to follow Martin.  The audio tapes I listened to *sound like* Zimmerman continued to follow or pursue Martin at that point.  This is the crucial moment for me in this mess. Feel free to disagree, and I'm almost sure he wasn't *looking* to kill someone that night ... but this moment right here carries some weight for me.



None of that matters when we talk about self defense.  I could following you around call you names throw candy at you head run up and punch you in the back of the head.  If you then beat me to the  ground and well after I'm no longer fighting back you continue to kick me guess what I started it followed you and hit you first but your still going to jail.


----------



## Wo Fat

jks9199 said:


> Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not?  Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent.  I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.



Except that the only way that one can conclude that "_Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman_", is to believe Zimmerman's accounts.  And he's already proven to be a liar.

No one can dispute that Zimmerman got his azz kicked.  But one has to have a whole lotta faith to continue taking Zimmerman at his word as to how it happened.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> Except that the only way that one can conclude that "_Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman_", is to believe Zimmerman's accounts.  And he's already proven to be a liar.
> 
> No one can dispute that Zimmerman got his azz kicked.  But one has to have a whole lotta faith to continue taking Zimmerman at his word as to how it happened.




On the other hand it seems like the other party was no angel either. 

Flip a coin.


----------



## billc

I must have fallen and hit my head.  Granfire, that is an excellent, and well made observation.  I'm going to go to the doctor now...


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> On the other hand it seems like the other party was no angel either.
> 
> Flip a coin.


And he didn't need to be an angel.  Ironically, it seems that he never had one bit of trouble in the neighborhood until he encountered George Zimmerman.

No I won't flip a coin.  Because I don't believe in some kind of twisted theory of "inevitability".  Trayvon Martin's killing wasn't inevitable (though some need to believe in that).  It was unnecessary.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> Except that the only way that one can conclude that "_Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman_", is to believe Zimmerman's accounts.  And he's already proven to be a liar.
> 
> No one can dispute that Zimmerman got his azz kicked.  But one has to have a whole lotta faith to continue taking Zimmerman at his word as to how it happened.


I tried to phrase that rather neutrally.  It certainly seems, from all the accounts I've read, that Martin did confront Zimmerman.  Whether he did this because he believed Zimmerman was following him, harassing him, or just because Martin was a kid -- the accounts I've read representing both sides suggest that Martin initiated the contact, though not necessarily the entire sequence of events.  I said it will turn on "*HOW* Martin confronted Zimmerman."  (emphasis added)  In other words, in the manner of that confrontation.  Did that confrontation and the subsequent fight reflect self defense on the part of Zimmerman, or of Martin?  Was either justified in attacking the other?  After all, at this point, it seems both were in someplace that they had a right to be, doing something they had a right to do.


----------



## jks9199

Wo Fat said:


> And he didn't need to be an angel.  Ironically, it seems that he never had one bit of trouble in the neighborhood until he encountered George Zimmerman.
> 
> No I won't flip a coin.  Because I don't believe in some kind of twisted theory of "inevitability".  Trayvon Martin's killing wasn't inevitable (though some need to believe in that).  It was unnecessary.



I, for one, have never suggested that Martin's death was either inevitable, or anything but a tragedy.  It was certainly "unnecessary" in the fact that had everything gone ideally, he wouldn't have been shot.  But that doesn't make Zimmerman's acts criminal.  It is not a crime to follow a person you believe to be suspicious in a public place.   It's not a crime to call the police about that person, or to continue to follow them even if you've been told not to by a dispatcher.  (I'm not aware of any laws obligating people to obey the dispatcher.)   It's also not a crime to go out in the rain in a place you're visiting for Skittles, or even to confront someone who seems to be following you.  Assault is a crime; there's no firm evidence who assaulted whom.  Nor is it a crime to defend yourself when you've been attacked.  Lethal force is justified if you are reasonably in fear of  death.  But we can't get there 'til the other pieces are resolved.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> And he didn't need to be an angel.  Ironically, it seems that he never had one bit of trouble in the neighborhood until he encountered George Zimmerman.
> 
> No I won't flip a coin.  Because I don't believe in some kind of twisted theory of "inevitability".  Trayvon Martin's killing wasn't inevitable (though some need to believe in that).  It was unnecessary.



He was visiting....that does not really count. And really, one time is all it takes to be in trouble.


However. You still believe that shtick about the good boy who can do no wrong as per the parents. Since then the tox screen came back positive for pot. Now mind you, I didn't read it, since I really don't care, and I am no medical expert, but it suggests that he at least inhaled....now, while I know of a handful of 'good people' who smoke, you have to go through considerable illegal trouble to get weed. 

And until the evidence is presented, we really won't know anything.

But I do understand that anything but the death penalty for GZ is a miscarriage of justice in your ice.


----------



## Wo Fat

jks9199 said:


> I tried to phrase that rather neutrally.  It certainly seems, from all the accounts I've read, that Martin did confront Zimmerman.  Whether he did this because he believed Zimmerman was following him, harassing him, or just because Martin was a kid -- the accounts I've read representing both sides suggest that Martin initiated the contact, though not necessarily the entire sequence of events.  I said it will turn on "*HOW* Martin confronted Zimmerman."  (emphasis added)  In other words, in the manner of that confrontation.  Did that confrontation and the subsequent fight reflect self defense on the part of Zimmerman, or of Martin?  Was either justified in attacking the other?  After all, at this point, it seems both were in someplace that they had a right to be, doing something they had a right to do.



I do understand what you're trying to say.  The problem with "all the accounts" that some have read/heard, is that they are all hearsay.  The only (living) first-hand source is George Zimmerman.  And he has already proven himself to be a liar--under oath, and in court of all places.  Believe his accounts accordingly.


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> He was visiting....that does not really count. And really, one time is all it takes to be in trouble.
> 
> 
> However. You still believe that shtick about the good boy who can do no wrong as per the parents. Since then the tox screen came back positive for pot. Now mind you, I didn't read it, since I really don't care, and I am no medical expert, but it suggests that he at least inhaled....now, while I know of a handful of 'good people' who smoke, you have to go through considerable illegal trouble to get weed.
> 
> And until the evidence is presented, we really won't know anything.
> 
> But I do understand that anything but the death penalty for GZ is a miscarriage of justice in your ice.



I don't care if Trayvon was "visiting".  He had every right to be there.  And his rights to be where he was, as well as his moral standing were equal to that of George Zimmerman or any other resident for that matter.  

Some people are offended by that notion--of "Trayvon-like" males having equal moral standing--but that's just something they'll have to get over.

No, I don't want the death penalty for Zimmerman (I'm not a proponent of it).  But I do want justice for Trayvon Martin.


----------



## jks9199

But are prepared for the possibility that Martin got justice as he attempted to kill Zimmerman?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Wo Fat

jks9199 said:


> But are prepared for the possibility that Martin got justice as he attempted to kill Zimmerman?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2



This is America.  Trayvon had no rights that George Zimmerman was bound to respect.  So yes, I'm prepared.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> This is America.  Trayvon had no rights that George Zimmerman was bound to respect.  So yes, I'm prepared.



That's correct Travon  had no right to bash someones head into the ground because the guy was following him.


----------



## MJS

jks9199 said:


> Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not?  Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent.  I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.



Hmm...and how many times, when we're discussing a self defense sitaution, do we hear people say the best course of action is to just walk away if possible?  Road rage incident, one guy calls the other a bunch of names.  Instead of walking away or trying to defuse the situation, the guy hauls off and punches the other guy for calling him names.  GZ didn't have to follow TM.  He did that on his own.


----------



## MJS

ballen0351 said:


> None of that matters when we talk about self defense.  I could following you around call you names throw candy at you head run up and punch you in the back of the head.  If you then beat me to the  ground and well after I'm no longer fighting back you continue to kick me guess what I started it followed you and hit you first but your still going to jail.



As you most likely will too no?  After all, you initiated that assault.  And no, of course once the person is no longer a threat, you shouldn't continue to beat them, tempting as it may be.


----------



## MJS

TM most likely was no angel.  But, IMO, thats moot.  As its been made perfectly clear, BOTH parties had every right to be where they were.  IMHO, unless someone is actually seen, doing something illegal, then IMO, GZ had shouldn've have followed the kid.


----------



## Tgace

MJS said:


> TM most likely was no angel.  But, IMO, thats moot.  As its been made perfectly clear, BOTH parties had every right to be where they were.  IMHO, unless someone is actually seen, doing something illegal, then IMO, GZ had shouldn've have followed the kid.



Y'all are getting too wrapped up in this "following" thing. So now a person has to actually observe a crime in progress before they can call 911 or keep a suspicious person in sight as they call police? If you see two teens walking down the street at night pulling the door handles of each car they pass....is that illegal? Should you call 911?  

Some of the best civilian involved arrests I have been involved in were because people just kept an eye on someone and directed us in.

I have heard no evidence that GZ was telling 911 that he was attempting to physically detain TM. 

Just because GZ was spotted by the person he was watching is no PROOF that he was right on TM's *** or chasing the kid around the neighborhood.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> Y'all are getting too wrapped up in this "following" thing. So now a person has to actually observe a crime in progress before they can call 911 or keep a suspicious person in sight as they call police. I have heard no evidence that GZ was telling 911 that he was attempting to physically detain TM.
> 
> Some of the best civilian involved arrests I have been involved in were because people just kept an eye on someone and directed us in. Just because GZ was spotted by the person he was watching is no PROOF that he was right on TM's *** or chasing the kid around the neighborhood.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



LOL, I apologize if I'm giving you that impression.  IIRC, I've said before that I take suspicious car/person calls every single day.  I certainly don't encourage the caller to put themselves in a sticky situation, ie: I dont tell them to follow the car, the person or anything that will put them at risk of harm.  I've also taken calls for active burgs, and I believe I told you about one a week or so ago.  No, I'm not against the public helping LEOs.  Numerous people, crimes in progress, have been thwarted by those good samaritans. 

Tom, my point is simple: By all means, call the police.   But don't play hero, dont play LEO.  If you wanna do what the cops do that bad, perhaps those folks should apply for the job.  I may be wrong, but it seemed to me, by the earlier reports, that GZ was actively following TM, and then lost sight of him, and then made his way back to his vehicle.  It was then, I believe, that TM approached GZ.


----------



## billc

I am not saying it happened this way, but if it happened the way you just described MJS, then the point of initiation of contact would fall back on Martin.  Still, it would need to be determined who made physical contact first in the physical confrontation, wouldn't it?   Perhaps the LEO's can talk about that.


----------



## MJS

billcihak said:


> I am not saying it happened this way, but if it happened the way you just described MJS, then the point of initiation of contact would fall back on Martin.  Still, it would need to be determined who made physical contact first in the physical confrontation, wouldn't it?   Perhaps the LEO's can talk about that.



I do see your point, however, I'd say that the point of contact would fall on GZ, at least initially.  He saw martin and started off after him.  Once he lost sight, I belive it was then Martin that came after Zimmerman.  At least thats the way I understood it initially.


----------



## Tgace

MJS said:


> LOL, I apologize if I'm giving you that impression.  IIRC, I've said before that I take suspicious car/person calls every single day.  I certainly don't encourage the caller to put themselves in a sticky situation, ie: I dont tell them to follow the car, the person or anything that will put them at risk of harm.  I've also taken calls for active burgs, and I believe I told you about one a week or so ago.  No, I'm not against the public helping LEOs.  Numerous people, crimes in progress, have been thwarted by those good samaritans.
> 
> Tom, my point is simple: By all means, call the police.   But don't play hero, dont play LEO.  If you wanna do what the cops do that bad, perhaps those folks should apply for the job.  I may be wrong, but it seemed to me, by the earlier reports, that GZ was actively following TM, and then lost sight of him, and then made his way back to his vehicle.  It was then, I believe, that TM approached GZ.



Of course you wouldn't TELL them to follow, but if the person can...for a last week example....move his car to the other end of a parking lot to keep an eye on two kids rummaging through cars, we don't tell him explicitly to stop. Following a drunk driver in a safe manner while calling 911 is not a car chase and far from "playing cop".

My only point is that it seems like people are portraying GZ as some sort of cop wannabe based on facts not in evidence. Which is not to imply that he wasn't. Perhaps he was chasing TM and trying to tackle him...but we have no evidence beyond our preconceived opinions.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> Of course you wouldn't TELL them to follow, but if the person can...for a last week example....move his car to the other end of a parking lot to keep an eye on two kids rummaging through cars, we don't tell him explicitly to stop. Following a drunk driver in a safe manner while calling 911 is not a car chase and far from "playing cop".
> 
> My only point is that it seems like people are portraying GZ as some sort of cop wannabe based on facts not in evidence. Which is not to imply that he wasn't. Perhaps he was chasing TM and trying to tackle him...but we have no evidence beyond our preconceived opinions.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Like I've said, I've told them to do the same, if its safe to do so.  I certainly don't want to be responsible for telling someone to do something thats going to bite me in the *** down the road.  As for following safely...again, thats the key word.  Many times, I've asked for a plate.  Their reply, "Well, he's driving too fast, and I can't see it.  Hang on, lemme try to catch up to him."  I'm sure you can imagine whats going thru my mind at that moment.  The majority of the time, when I take those calls, I ask them if they want to file a complaint.  If they say yes, I tell them to pull over and I'll send them an officer.  If no, then I simply BOLO the info to the guys on the street.  

As for playing cop....I certainly dont want to encourage someone to do something they a) dont have to do and more importantly b) shouldn't be doing.  I wouldnt expect or encourage a customer in a bank to stop an armed robbery.  Even if I had a CCW, I'd definately think more than twice, before I did something.  Why?  I'm not obligated to.  Second, what if something goes wrong?  I can hear it now, God forbid, someone gets shot.  "Well, if this guy didn't act like John Wayne, pull out his gun and try to stop the bad guy, my mother would still be alive."  

In the end, whats done is done.  We can 'what if' this until we're blue in the face, but fact is, we can't turn back time.  GZ did what he did, right or wrong, and there's no going back now.  All we can hope for, and yes I know this is a HUGE stretch, is that they find a non-biased jury.  Time will tell.


----------



## WC_lun

I can think of another very good reason to not encourage non LEO people to try an perform LEO type actions, They aren't trained for it.  Most LEOs go through tons and tons of training so that lethal force is not needed.  Get a guy who is not trainined, carrying a gun, confronted by someone he already views as a criminal, and it isn't a stretch to think bad things could happen.  I do not know whether Zimmerman is guilty of murder.  I do know he is guilty of making a bad decision that in the end got him arrested and a boy dead.  We don't put people in prison for simply making a bad decision.  It must be proved he broke the law as well.  As said, hopefully there will be an unbiased jury.


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> That's correct Travon  had no right to bash someones head into the ground because the guy was following him.



Rather, Zimmerman had no right to profile, pursue, harass and engage someone who was minding his own business in place where had business to be.  You can believe Zimmerman; he's been adjudicated as a liar.  I'll believe the dead kid.


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Rather, Zimmerman had no right to profile, pursue, harass and engage someone who was minding his own business in place where had business to be.  You can believe Zimmerman; he's been adjudicated as a liar.  I'll believe the dead kid.



Following someone from a distance is not harassment.  The sounds of things right now are martin is the one that engaged.  As for having business to be there well so did Zimmerman it was his neighborhood he was taking pride and ownership of it which I wish more people would do in the country.


----------



## ballen0351

By the way you can't believe the dead kid he hasn't and can't tell his story you believe the media accounts which we know for a fact have lied , used dishonest editing, and partial truths to make for better news.


----------



## Tgace

Wo Fat said:


> Rather, Zimmerman had no right to profile, pursue, harass and engage someone who was minding his own business in place where had business to be.  You can believe Zimmerman; he's been adjudicated as a liar.  I'll believe the dead kid.



That's a statement of your political axe grinding more than it is about any facts in this case.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> By the way you can't believe the dead kid he hasn't and can't tell his story you believe the media accounts which we know for a fact have lied , used dishonest editing, and partial truths to make for better news.



Obviously I didn't mean literally, ballen.  That said, all of the accounts of what happened are hearsay.  The only person who can provide a first-hand account is, who?  Yes ... George Zimmerman.  Who couldn't even manage to tell the truth at his bond hearing.  He's a liar.  The Court has said as much.  But by all means, continue to be believe him if that suits your sensibilities.


----------



## Wo Fat

Tgace said:


> That's a statement of your political axe grinding more than it is about any facts in this case.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



You can read the Court filings and arrive at the same opinion.  But maybe I'm just more pro-prosecution than most.


----------



## ballen0351

But had he used that money that was sent to him specifically for his defense as bail money then you would be saying he committed fraud for using the money for a different purpose.  You have had him convicted since day one with zero facts


----------



## Wo Fat

ballen0351 said:


> But had he used that money that was sent to him specifically for his defense as bail money then you would be saying he committed fraud for using the money for a different purpose.  You have had him convicted since day one with zero facts



Had he used that $150K (or whatever it was) for the $15,000 bond, the fact that he's now an adjudicated liar would be a moot point.  

Had he done what you suggest, he would have disclosed the existence of the funds; used them partly for bail; and the rest for his defense.  But see, that's sensible.  That's what people like you or I would have done had we found ourselves in legal trouble.  Zimmerman isn't the responsible type, though.  He's proven to be the under-handed type.  Hell, he even enlisted his wife to scam the Court.

The fact that he attempted to defraud the Court IS a fact.  And when it's a liar's word versus a dead kid, the facts don't look so good.  He doesn't need me to convict him ... he's doing a bang-up job of it all by himself.


----------



## crushing

Wo Fat said:


> Had he used that $150K (or whatever it was) for the $15,000 bond, the fact that he's now an adjudicated liar would be a moot point.
> 
> Had he done what you suggest, he would have disclosed the existence of the funds; used them partly for bail; and the rest for his defense. But see, that's sensible. That's what people like you or I would have done had we found ourselves in legal trouble. Zimmerman isn't the responsible type, though. He's proven to be the under-handed type. Hell, he even enlisted his wife to scam the Court.
> 
> The fact that he attempted to defraud the Court IS a fact. And when it's a liar's word versus a dead kid, the facts don't look so good. He doesn't need me to convict him ... he's doing a bang-up job of it all by himself.



You bring up some points, spun as they are that makes one question if he is getting adequate legal counsel in his dealings with the justice system.


----------



## Wo Fat

crushing said:


> You bring up some points, spun as they are that makes one question if he is getting adequate legal counsel in his dealings with the justice system.



Zimmerman is getting far better legal counsel than 99% of the rest of those dealing with the "justice" system.  Besides: he just made bail again.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> Zimmerman is getting far better legal counsel than 99% of the rest of those dealing with the "justice" system.  Besides: he just made bail again.



Hyperbole much?

Considering that he has already been found guilty in the media, he needs the better counsel to just make his trial legal.


----------



## Wo Fat

granfire said:


> Hyperbole much?
> 
> Considering that he has already been found guilty in the media, he needs the better counsel to just make his trial legal.



Hyperbole much?


----------



## ballen0351

Wo Fat said:


> Had he used that $150K (or whatever it was) for the $15,000 bond, the fact that he's now an adjudicated liar would be a moot point.
> 
> Had he done what you suggest, he would have disclosed the existence of the funds; used them partly for bail; and the rest for his defense.  But see, that's sensible.  That's what people like you or I would have done had we found ourselves in legal trouble.  Zimmerman isn't the responsible type, though.  He's proven to be the under-handed type.  Hell, he even enlisted his wife to scam the Court.
> 
> The fact that he attempted to defraud the Court IS a fact.  And when it's a liar's word versus a dead kid, the facts don't look so good.  He doesn't need me to convict him ... he's doing a bang-up job of it all by himself.



Actually I would have thought that money is not mine it was donated to pay for a lawyer not as money for my bail so I wouldn't have used it for that


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Actually I would have thought that money is not mine it was donated to pay for a lawyer not as money for my bail so I wouldn't have used it for that



No matter. had he used it for bail he would have been a thief for abusing the funds.


----------



## billc

More on Zimmerman and how he behaved after the shooting...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/george-zimmerman-lynching-further-unravels/



> Despite erroneous media claims, George Zimmerman&#8217;s next-day account tracked well with both the physical and medical evidence recovered at the scene of the shooting and with the recording of the non-emergency call he made the night before.
> An underreported fact of the investigation: the almost foolishly transparent way Zimmerman cooperated with police, refusing to obtain an attorney until long after he&#8217;d completed his interviews and follow-up interviews with the Sanford Police&#8217;s investigators.





> Discrepancies between more minor details surrounding the incident &#8212; including remembering where someone was standing, what they said, or recalling why someone did something during the course of events &#8212; are entirely expected during the first three days, with the final and most accurate recollection expected to have &#8220;set&#8221; three sleep cycles after the event.
> The comparison between George Zimmerman&#8217;s written statement of February 26 and his audio-recorded interviews on February 26 and 29 is stunning primarily for the consistency of his argument across these time periods. Despite an attempt by SPD investigators to compare the non-emergency call he made to police against 911 calls of that night, the key details of  Zimmerman&#8217;s story hold up.
> The most interesting character in the Zimmerman interrogations isn&#8217;t George Zimmerman, but Sanford Police Department investigator Christopher Serino. Cordial at first, stern at times, and seemingly vacillating  between &#8220;good cop and &#8220;bad cop&#8221; roles, Serino is as variable over the three-part interrogation as Zimmerman is consistent.


ADVERTISEMENT​


> Pushing and probing a suspect in an attempt to clarify discrepancies or to expose a lying suspect is the police investigator&#8217;s job, but Serino stands accused of going beyond his duty. He may have gone as far as attempting to influence the public&#8217;s perception of the case in what would be an unethical and possibly illegal leak to the media, according to Conservative Tree House:We contacted the Sanford Police Department, the Public Information Officer, and the Police Chief, and we explained how they can use the secured CCTV system to identify who accessed the footage and recorded it on their cell phone.
> Now we know that recording was done by Lead Detective Chris Serino who was also the source of numerous exclusive ABC leaks.
> Chris Serino was obviously disciplined and given the opportunity to resign from his position and take another position as  &#8220;Night Patrol&#8221;, where he can wait til his retirement.​





> ABC&#8217;s Matt Gutman, the reporter who ran the video apparently leaked by Serino, appeared to confirm Serino as the leaker in a tweet &#8212; then deleted the tweet and denied his confirmation was a confirmation at all. Gutman himself now seems to have been pulled from the story and has been sent overseas by ABC News, as Serino was confirmed to have been transferred to street patrol even as the department publicly claims his transfer is not a demotion.
> All actual physical evidence, medical evidence, and eyewitness statements suggest that Zimmerman&#8217;s account of the significant events of that night can be corroborated, and that an overzealous investigator and politically minded  prosecutor have manufactured a second-degree murder case that never should have been filed.


----------



## billc

Hmmm...not a racist...

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...neighborhood-watch-volunteer-george-zimmerman


> Federal civil-rights investigators interviewed dozens ofGeorge Zimmerman's friends, neighbors and co-workers, and no one said he was a racist, records released Thursday show.
> FBI agents spread out across the state, talking to three dozen people, including gun-shop employees, Zimmerman's ex-fiancée and the Sanford police detective who led the investigation into the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old.


----------



## MJS

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ness-zimmerman-did-not-like-black-people?lite

"An unnamed witness who grew up around George Zimmerman contacted authorities after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin because she feared that Zimmerman was motivated by a prejudice against black people, she said in recorded conversations with investigators. The witness also alleges that Zimmerman molested her over the course of a decade, starting when she was 6 years old.
The woman, known in the records as Witness #9, spoke to the investigators on March 20, interviewers in the audio recording indicated. The recording was released by the Florida State Attorney's Office on Monday under the state's open records laws. The identity of the witness was not released, but NBC News has reported she is a cousin."


----------



## granfire

MJS said:


> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ness-zimmerman-did-not-like-black-people?lite
> 
> "An unnamed witness who grew up around George Zimmerman contacted authorities after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin because she feared that Zimmerman was motivated by a prejudice against black people, she said in recorded conversations with investigators. The witness also alleges that Zimmerman molested her over the course of a decade, starting when she was 6 years old.
> The woman, known in the records as Witness #9, spoke to the investigators on March 20, interviewers in the audio recording indicated. The recording was released by the Florida State Attorney's Office on Monday under the state's open records laws. The identity of the witness was not released, but NBC News has reported she is a cousin."




(then again, having 'witnessed' a cousin hacking an account and discrediting the account holder....It could be just a means for this person to get even, too...)

Ah the many twists...these past few month have provided enough material for a few years worth of soap operas...


----------



## MJS

granfire said:


> (then again, having 'witnessed' a cousin hacking an account and discrediting the account holder....It could be just a means for this person to get even, too...)
> 
> Ah the many twists...these past few month have provided enough material for a few years worth of soap operas...



Good points.


----------



## Wo Fat

MJS said:


> http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ness-zimmerman-did-not-like-black-people?lite
> 
> "An unnamed witness who grew up around George Zimmerman contacted authorities after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin because she feared that Zimmerman was motivated by a prejudice against black people, she said in recorded conversations with investigators. The witness also alleges that Zimmerman molested her over the course of a decade, starting when she was 6 years old.
> The woman, known in the records as Witness #9, spoke to the investigators on March 20, interviewers in the audio recording indicated. The recording was released by the Florida State Attorney's Office on Monday under the state's open records laws. The identity of the witness was not released, but NBC News has reported she is a cousin."



I'm not saying that the witness is lying.  But accusing a murder suspect of not only being a bigot (which is already under investigation) but being a pedophile ... well, that's a pretty serious allegation.  Hopefully, this witness either volunteered or conceded to a polygraph.


----------



## granfire

Wo Fat said:


> I'm not saying that the witness is lying.  But accusing a murder suspect of not only being a bigot (which is already under investigation) but being a pedophile ... well, that's a pretty serious allegation.  Hopefully, this witness either volunteered or conceded to a polygraph.



Well, not knowing how old the other person is, it might just be pervert/rapist...not that it's any better, but the difference is in the age of the perpetrator...


----------



## billc

New photo of Zimmerman after the fight...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/03/Photo-of-George-Zimmerman-Shows-Bloody-Nose-on-Night-of-Trayvon-Martin-Shooting


----------



## arnisador

That'll surely help his case--if verified.


----------



## Carol

ABC News is reporting that a black and white version of the photo has been up on a web site dedicated to Mr. Zimmerman's defense.  If that is indeed the case, then the photo is not new, or a surprise to the parties involved, what's new is rhe public release of the image in color.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-lawyers-say-bloody-nose-photo-creates-doubt/


----------



## billc

Some are suspicious as to why only the black and white photo was released to the defense...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/04/to-what-lengths-did-someone-go-to-scapegoat-george-zimmerman/



> The &#8220;new&#8221; photo of George Zimmerman raises some very disturbing issues. Take a look at the black and white version of the photo, which the Florida prosecutor gave to the defense as part of the discovery process shortly after his altercation with Trayvon Martin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than color, what else is missing from this photo?
> Can you tell how old George Zimmerman is? To me, he looks like he could be any age from 20 to more than 50. But the graininess and lack of visible hair on the top of his head suggest that he is an older man.
> The lack of color in the photo obscures Zimmerman&#8217;s race as well. As a friend of mine pointed out to me, the man in that photo is brighter in complexion than the man is in reality. The black and white photo renders Zimmerman a pale white. The whites of his eyes and his facial skin are nearly the same tone. The contrast makes his face emerge harshly from the shadows behind him.
> The man in the photo above looks somewhat menacing. The misshapen nose suggests a history of brawls, the color having been drained away, taking with it the reds and purples indicating a fresh wound from a very recent attack. The vacant look in his eyes suggests no remorse for the killing of a young man, which the man in the photo had done moments before the photo was taken.
> &#8220;This man might be a thug.&#8221; That&#8217;s the nonverbal message of the photo above.
> Now, look again at the color photo. This is the unaltered photo, from which the grainy, black and white version was manufactured.
> 
> 
> 
> Seen in color, the &#8220;thug&#8221; who might be, becomes a wounded young man. Shock and fear ring his eyes. There may be small wounds or acne on his forehead. Blood drips from his nose and his lip appears to be busted open. His nose appears to be freshly broken. Instead of being a white ghoul emerging from shadows, he is a wounded man sitting in a car after a life-changing, possibly life-destroying, event has happened. The ghoul has flesh and blood after all. He bleeds.
> From that color photo, taken in color at high resolution by law enforcement officers moments after the altercation, someone manufactured the grainy black and white photo and made the decision to hand that version, but not the full color version, over to Zimmerman&#8217;s defense. Who did that? Who manufactured that photo? How did they manufacture it? Why did they manufacture it?


----------



## billc

Well, we have updates...Martin's girlfriend is alleged to have comitted perjury that will effect her appearing in court...and Martin apparently was a fan of MMA...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/why_florida_persists_in_the_zimmerman_prosecution.html



> The  witnesses to the February 2012 shooting of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin  are proving even more troublesome than the angels. The state's case took  a hit last week when Witness #8, Martin's alleged 16-year-old  sweetheart "Dee Dee," was caught in falsehoods so flagrant that even the  Trayvon-friendly Orlando _Sentinel_ noticed them. Conceded the headline, "Lawyer: State's main witness in George Zimmerman murder case lied."







> An  hour after the shooting, Witness #6 told the Sanford Police Department  (SPD) that he saw a "black man in a black hoodie on top of either a  white guy. . . or an Hispanic guy in a red sweater on the ground yelling  out help." According to #6, the black man on top was "throwing down  blows on the guy MMA [mixed martial arts] style."
> 
> "The person calling for help would be the person underneath, you think?" asked the SPD officer.
> "Yes, that was the one getting beat up," said Witness #6. "He was the one with the red sweater on."
> As  a side note, soon after the shooting, bloggers uncovered ample evidence  in Martin's social media accounts of his keen interest in MMA style  fighting. The media have ignored that too.




Here is what she committed perjury about...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/witness-in-trayvon-martin-case-lied-will-it-even-go-to-trial/



> The key prosecution witness in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman has allegedly been caught in a significant lie:
> 
> Trayvon Martin&#8217;s girlfriend, the state&#8217;s most important  witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was  revealed Tuesday.
> It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was  the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward  position.
> 
> They had to publicly acknowledge that their star witness had lied  under oath and had to answer questions about what they intend to do  about it.
> Reporters asked: Will you charge the 19-year-old Miami woman with perjury?
> The state&#8217;s lead prosecutor, Bernie de la Rionda, gave an ambiguous  answer: &#8220;You can all read the law and make your own decision.&#8221;​The 19-year-old woman &#8212; who had originally claimed to be just sixteen  at the time of the shooting, when she was in fact two years older &#8212; was  caught in a second lie. She had told prosecutors that she was in the  hospital during Trayvon Martin&#8217;s funeral, a claim that investigators for  the defense now claim is false.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Isn't it fascinating how initially the mainstream media jumped all over this story, yet as the state's case against Zimmerman continues to fall apart they continue to distance themselves from it?


----------



## billc

When they thought it was a "white," guy shooting an unarmed teenager because of racist motives...they could barely keep the drool in their mouths...

And then...he was a "hispanic," white guy...and the teen had some trouble in his past and may have initiated the attack...and their little hearts broke...


----------



## zDom

I am ashamed of our national media. For them to pursue their agenda (anti-gun and hate mongering between races) and skew stories so far from the truth is despicable.

This isn't a Democrat / Republican issue. This is an "American people deserve the TRUTH from news to inform their world-view" issue.


----------



## billc

Well, with the pre-trial motions happening we are starting to get a better picture of the real Trayvon Martin...the one the press tried to suppress...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html



> As  his social media accounts show, Martin was a student of mixed martial  arts.  The fight followed the MMA format.  A day later, he would tell a  friend that his opponent "got mo hits cause in da 1[SUP]st[/SUP] round  he had me on da ground nd I couldn't do ntn."  As his girlfriend  complained, Martin was "always" fighting.  He was also something of a  sadist.  His opponent, after all, did not bleed enough.  Why might this  be relevant?​



​ 


> Martin  was not the innocent little boy that the media relentlessly and  corruptly portrayed him to be.  At the time of his death, he was five  feet, eleven inches and weighed 158 pounds.  To put this in perspective,  legendary boxer Tommy "The Hitman" Hearns was six feet, one inch and  145 pounds when he first won the world welterweight title as a  twenty-one-year-old.
> 
> 
> Before  leaving for Orlando on February 21, 2012, Martin had already missed 53  days of school that year and been suspended three times, most recently  for possessing drug paraphernalia, the time before that for getting  caught with women's jewelry and a burglary tool.  Why might this be  relevant?





> On  January 6, 2012, Martin got into trouble at school again.  When asked  why, he told a friend, "Caus I was watcn a fight nd a teacher say I hit  em."  Said the friend, "Idk how u be getting in trouble an sh**."  By  this time, Martin's mother had thrown him out of the house for "fightn,"  and he had moved in with his aunt and uncle.
> 
> 
> The  multiple texts about "weed" and the photos of marijuana plants  confirmed his interests in drugs -- a friend called him "weedhead" --  but the new photos pointed to an even more dangerous new hobby --  namely, guns.  Indeed, one of the photos of Martin's showed a hand,  likely Martin's own, on a pistol.


This doesn't mean he should have been killed, but it does show that the shooting may well have been justified at the time it happened...
​


----------



## arnisador

I didn't know about the MMA angle. I wonder if he was a student as we think of it here, or just watched the fights and mimicked them, like kids with pro wrestling.


----------



## billc

More on the pre-trial supression of evidence...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/trayvon_george_and_the_homeless_man.html

On Zimmerman's defence of a homeless man beaten by police...




> Although  Ware suffered a concussion, and there was video evidence of Collison's  action, no action was taken against Collison for nearly a month.  Upset  at the lack of media attention, Zimmerman and his wife Shellie  printed fliers demanding that the community "hold accountable" officers  responsible for any misconduct.
> 
> 
> They  then drove the fliers around to area churches and passed them out on a  Sunday morning.  Later, at a public meeting in January 2011, Zimmerman  took the floor and said, "I would just like to state that the law is  written in black and white.  It should not and cannot be enforced in the  gray for those that are in the thin blue line."


​ 



> This  meeting was recorded on video.  As a result of the publicity, Police  Chief Brian Tooley, whom Zimmerman blasted for his "illegal cover-up and  corruption," was forced to resign.
> 
> 
> Ironically,  perhaps, Zimmerman headlined his fliers with a famous quote from  Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke:  "The only thing necessary for the  triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  He would have been  better off quoting another Anglo-Irishman, Oscar Wilde: "No good deed  goes unpunished."
> 
> The  local NAACP, with whom Zimmerman worked on the Sherman Ware case,  instinctively turned its back on him as soon as he was accused of racist  profiling in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.  On March 26, a  month after the shooting, George's older brother Robert sent an  impassioned letter to local NAACP head Turner Clayton asking him to  "call off the dogs. Period. Publicly and swiftly."




On Martin and his proclivity for fighting...



> O'Mara  countered by saying that Martin not only attended fights, but that he  also recorded them on video, including "one where two buddies of his are  beating up a homeless guy."  The video recorded a crime.  The State of  Florida had had this video in possession for months and took no  follow-up action.  As O'Mara made clear at the most recent hearing, the  State had concealed critical evidence all along.  He even produced a  whistleblower from the state attorney's office to hammer home his point.


----------



## billc

Here is a question...does anyone want to start a seperate thread for the Zimmerman trial...or do you want to keep trial coverage under this thread.  I suggest this only because this thread is so large already, and the pre-trial stuff is starting to come out and it is fresh material?

As to more pre-trial stuff...scream analysis...who screamed and the experts...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...called-absurd-ridiculous-and-imaginary-stuff/



> Even based merely on their relative training and experience the defense expert witnesses appear to vastly outclass those brought forward by the State.  For example:
> 
> *State Expert #1, Tom Owens:*  A one-man audio forensics operation whose highest academic degree is a BA in History, who has no formal academic training in speech recognition or speaker identification, whose standards for analysis are self-written and in any case subject to self-violation in order to ensure a &#8220;finding&#8221;, who uses as his primary speech analysis tool a computerized &#8220;biometric&#8221; system in which he has a substantial financial stake, and which in any case he has used for less than two years and tested about as an expert witness only once before.
> 
> *State Expert #2, Dr. Alan Reich, PhD: * A long-retired college professor with an avocational interest in speech recognition and identification who manages to hear words and phrases in audio recordings that cannot be heard by world-leading experts in the field, much less by layman.
> Compare and contrast with the defense expert witnesses:
> 
> *Defense Expert #1, Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone, PhD: * A senior scientist with a 17-year career with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, currently the Head of the Bureau&#8217;s Voice Recognition Program,  and the Head of the international working group establishing the first formal scientific standards for speech recognition and speaker identification.
> 
> *Defense Expert #2, Dr. J.P. (Peter) French, PhD: * Dr. French earned his PhD in the analyses of recorded conversations, he is the Director of J.P. French Associates,  the United Kingdom&#8217;s longest established independent forensic laboratory specializing in the analysis of speech, audio, and language with 6 full-time scientific staff, and a Professor in the Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.
> 
> *Defense Expert #3, Dr. George Doddington, PhD:*  Dr. Doddington conducted his doctoral thesis on speaker recognition, and since 1970 he has been leading the development and evaluation of speech recognition and speaker identification technologies and methodologies at a wide variety of top-level institutions, including Texas Instruments, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and currently at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).   Interestingly, he was deeply involved in the development of the voice recognition technology used in the F-16 fighter aircraft.





> [h=3]&#8220;It&#8217;s pretty much axiomatic in the community that you can&#8217;t compare screaming with speech.&#8221;[/h]When asked whether a sample recording of someone shouting or screaming would create particular challenges to forensic audio analysis, Dr. French was adamant that they would.  In fact, he said it would be impossible to compare a normal speaking voice to a scream made in distress, or vice versa.
> French:  &#8220;When people shout, we have to realize that shouting is not simply speaking made louder, people have got completely different vocal settings when we shout than when we speak.  It is very difficult, if someone is genuinely shouting rather than just speaking with a raised voice, to do a comparison.&#8221;


----------

