George Zimmerman verdict just in . . .

[keysersoze]

not guilty

[vhatever]

Prima facie as it is, america hasn't become a banana republic....



Yet.

[markabilly]

Facts: Hispanic shoots black guy in a fight. Only one witness, a person of Asian descent, clearly saw the incident and gave the account over the cell phone to police dispatcher as it happened. Says GZ was attacked and put on the ground by TM and was beating GZ by fists to the face and having the back of GZ's head repeatedly slammed to the concrete by TM (who was larger and stronger than GZ). He says TM and not GZ started fight, not GZ. He says that GZ was screaming, help me (notwithstanding that TM relatives claim it was TM screaming while GZ parents say it was GZ) Evidence showed that GZ nose broken and wounds to head support the story. No physical evidence supports any beating being delivered to TM by GZ. Physical evidence from path of bullet supports only one story: that GZ was below and TM was on top. GZ was in lawful possession of the firearm.---------------------------------- Six women, including one black, finds reasonable doubt and returns not quilty verdict, apparently never reaching the issue of self defense. ------------------Never understood why there was a prosecution, except for the desire of big media, politicians and some other folks to play the race card and generate money and revenue. There never would have been a trial in the first place, except for politicians like Jesse Jackson, Obama, Sharpton and NBC making much so much noise. NBC sued by GZ for making false statements about GZ that pushed further investigation into case, statements that even NBC has recognized as being false and misleading. :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

Another fact: GZ did not "win". He has already paid a huge price for defending a neighborhood from serious, violent crime--something which the undisputed evidence showed that he had done repeatedly before the night in question. If this is not enough, there is now a big demand from some of the same folks as before, for a federal investigation and filing of federal charges.

[vhatever]

The only really interesting thing that came out of the actual trial evidence was that Trayvon was the one who appeared to be the beligerent racist, not zimmerman.

additionally, and I was stunned to find this, they found a burglary tool in the bushes near the area the incident occurred. When this case first happened, it sounded to me like Trayvon ran off to either stash some stolen goods or some drugs, then he would doubleback and confront the guy who followed him. Upon confronting him in person, trayvon then thought he could "take" Zimmerman in a fight, so he threw the sucker punch and that's how it all started.

The burglary tool is very, very interesting further in that trayvon was busted with a similar burglary tool (along with a dozen pieces of women's jewelry) in his backpack at school previously.

[Roamy]

Facts: Hispanic shoots black guy in a fight. Only one witness, a person of Asian descent, clearly saw the incident and gave the account over the cell phone to police dispatcher as it happened. Says GZ was attacked and put on the ground by TM and was beating GZ by fists to the face and having the back of GZ's head repeatedly slammed to the concrete by TM (who was larger and stronger than GZ). He says TM and not GZ started fight, not GZ. He says that GZ was screaming, help me (notwithstanding that TM relatives claim it was TM screaming while GZ parents say it was GZ) Evidence showed that GZ nose broken and wounds to head support the story. No physical evidence supports any beating being delivered to TM by GZ. Physical evidence from path of bullet supports only one story: that GZ was below and TM was on top. GZ was in lawful possession of the firearm.---------------------------------- Six women, including one black, finds reasonable doubt and returns not quilty verdict, apparently never reaching the issue of self defense. ------------------Never understood why there was a prosecution, except for the desire of big media, politicians and some other folks to play the race card and generate money and revenue. There never would have been a trial in the first place, except for politicians like Jesse Jackson, Obama, Sharpton and NBC making much so much noise. NBC sued by GZ for making false statements about GZ that pushed further investigation into case, statements that even NBC has recognized as being false and misleading. :rolleyes:

Excellent !!!!!!!!!!!

[Roamy]

The only really interesting thing that came out of the actual trial evidence was that Trayvon was the one who appeared to be the beligerent racist, not zimmerman.

additionally, and I was stunned to find this, they found a burglary tool in the bushes near the area the incident occurred. When this case first happened, it sounded to me like Trayvon ran off to either stash some stolen goods or some drugs, then he would doubleback and confront the guy who followed him. Upon confronting him in person, trayvon then thought he could "take" Zimmerman in a fight, so he threw the sucker punch and that's how it all started.

The burglary tool is very, very interesting further in that trayvon was busted with a similar burglary tool (along with a dozen pieces of women's jewelry) in his backpack at school previously.


Thank you - I had no idea of this info. This was really a sorry ass judge as well.

[Daniel]

So you guys are OK for someone who essentially dished out the death penalty to someone who was at worst, a minor burglar?

Interesting, hope you guys never give anyone the wrong impressed about your intentions, could get nasty.

[donKey jote]

Facts: wannabe policeman goes looking for trouble and finds it's too much to handle without his gun.
Anybody wonder why his police application was rejected? :dozey:

[Daniel]

Facts: wannabe policeman goes looking for trouble and finds it's too much to handle without his gun.
Anybody wonder why his police application was rejected? :dozey:

Donks! Don't make the Americanians feel threatened or else they might be forced to shoot.

[Tazio]

Facts: wannabe policeman goes looking for trouble and finds it's too much to handle without his gun.
Anybody wonder why his police application was rejected?+1
Nail..Head... :s mash:


Donks! Don't make the Americanians feel threatened or else they might be forced to shoot. Only some Americans Danny :dozey:

[Daniel]

You're right, unfair generalization.....

[markabilly]

back of Zimmerman's head after he was attacked and the face, taken sometime later:http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HA.72730682563&pid=1.7&w=266&h=129&c=7&rs=1

[markabilly]

at the scene 3 minutes later after the attack:http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5034626106721790&pid=1.7&w=306&h=171&c=7&rs=1

[markabilly]

So you guys are OK for someone who essentially dished out the death penalty to someone who was at worst, a minor burglar?

Interesting, hope you guys never give anyone the wrong impressed about your intentions, could get nasty.

Wrong impression??--you mean that while I bash your head repeatedly into the concrete street and hit you in the face, while pinning you down so you can not escape, and being larger and stronger than you, with the potential of killing you if I do not stop, while I am trespassing in a gated neighborhood where I do not live, where a number of break-ins and violent crimes had occurred, late at night....that I am at most, just a minor burglar??

[vhatever]

Donks! Don't make the Americanians feel threatened or else they might be forced to shoot.


yep, it is one of the many things that made this country great. You do not have to allow yourself to be murdered/raped/otherwise brutalized if you have the means to defend yourself. Martin should have went home; he had 4-5 minutes to do so when it would have taken him no more than 30-40 seconds to walk it. Being a concerned neighbor, a busybody , or wanna-be cop are not illegal. Assaulting someone is, even if that someone is just a "cracker", as Martin put it.

[Daniel]

Markabilly, pursue me with a gun and let me get close enough to have your head in my hands and they'll be scraping your brains off the pavement, just saying :)

[markabilly]

Zimmerman lived in the complex, Martin did not. Zimmerman was a volunteer in the neighborhood watch program along with others as the cops were always too slow to do anything. Zimmerman did not pull a gun until down on the ground, being hit by "martial art style blows".---No evidence that Martin had any idea that Zimmerman had a gun. -------- Zimmerman had seen martin about three minutes earlier and had attempted to watch Martin, and called the police. Police as usual said, we will get there whenever, go back to your car. Zimmerman was doing that, having lost contact of Martin. Zimmerman was close to his car, when Martin approached and attacked him. The "hunter" had become the hunted. Martin could have done what he was doing...disappearing, apparently after dumping his burglar tools in the bushes, but chose to double back and attack Zimmerman. If Martin had attacked Daniel, Daniel would not have been able to scrape up Daniel's own brains from the concrete street---just saying.....and of course, Daniel's demise would have been only brief local news as are many other such murders.

[vhatever]

Markabilly, pursue me with a gun and let me get close enough to have your head in my hands and they'll be scraping your brains off the pavement, just saying :)


He has a legal right to carry a gun; it's enshrined in our constitution even. And you would really be dumb enough to attack someone with a gun? Save the bluster for the naive or ignorant. Martin thought zimmerman was an easy mark. He wanted to be a thug and he died like a thug.

[Daniel]

Zimmerman lived in the complex, Martin did not. Zimmerman was a volunteer in the neighborhood watch program along with others as the cops were always too slow to do anything. Zimmerman did not pull a gun until down on the ground, being hit by "martial art style blows".---No evidence that Martin had any idea that Zimmerman had a gun. -------- Zimmerman had seen martin about three minutes earlier and had attempted to watch Martin, and called the police. Police as usual said, we will get there whenever, go back to your car. Zimmerman was doing that, having lost contact of Martin. Zimmerman was close to his car, when Martin approached and attacked him. The "hunter" had become the hunted. Martin could have done what he was doing...disappearing, apparently after dumping his burglar tools in the bushes, but chose to double back and attack Zimmerman. If Martin had attacked Daniel, Daniel would not have been able to scrape up Daniel's own brains from the concrete street---just saying.....and of course, Daniel's demise would have been only brief local news as are many other such murders.

How would he have attacked me? I'd have stayed in my car :rotflmao: Go looking for trouble and more often than not, you'll find it.

[Daniel]

He has a legal right to carry a gun; it's enshrined in our constitution even. And you would really be dumb enough to attack someone with a gun? Save the bluster for the naive or ignorant. Martin thought zimmerman was an easy mark. He wanted to be a thug and he died like a thug.

He wanted to be a thug, is this because he's black and black people are all thugs? :confused:

[vhatever]

He wanted to be a thug, is this because he's black and black people are all thugs? :confused:

From superman to mind reader. is there anything you can't do behind the safety of your computer?

[BDunnell]

What a surprise that those defending the verdict are the inarticulate ones, while those who question it can write properly.

[Daniel]

From superman to mind reader. is there anything you can't do behind the safety of your computer?

Oh I don't know, go looking for a fight and shoot an unarmed person with my gun and feel like a big man?

[leighton323]

Just a question, I am against guns entirely, I think they do way more harm than good, but what if Zimmerman didn't have one, or hadn't used it? Wouldn't we now be in court discussing why Martin is now being trialled for murder and whether or not Zimmerman should have used or had gun to protect himself?

[Daniel]

Just a question, I am against guns entirely, I think they do way more harm than good, but what if Zimmerman didn't have one, or hadn't used it? Wouldn't we now be in court discussing why Martin is now being trialled for murder and whether or not Zimmerman should have used or had gun to protect himself?

If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have followed the guy and nothing would have happened, at worst someone's house may have possibly gotten broken into......

[leighton323]

If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have followed the guy and nothing would have happened, at worst someone's house may have possibly gotten broken into......

But his job was to patrol the neighbourhood, just like in NZ where police don't have guns. Just because try font have guns doesn't mean they don't want to stop crime?

[leighton323]

If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have followed the guy and nothing would have happened, at worst someone's house may have possibly gotten broken into......

But his job was to patrol the neighbourhood, just like in NZ where police don't have guns. Just because they don't have guns doesn't mean they don't want to stop crime?

[markabilly]

He wanted to be a thug, is this because he's black and black people are all thugs? :confused: What a surprise, Daniel follows his own Rule 1: "Rule 1 of the forum, always accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bias.I (sic) would say that though." (a quote complete with the typo)


What a surprise that those defending the verdict are the inarticulate ones, while those who question it can write properly.
Really? See above. Anyway, what a surprise. Dunnell engages in a personal attack to bait someone. I like that though, as it proves an old saying: Argue the law. When that is failing, argue the facts. When that is also failing, engage in name calling.....

[leighton323]

Guys, we want a debate. Don't turn this into anything personal by attacking each other. Discuss the topic.

[markabilly]

Just a question, I am against guns entirely, I think they do way more harm than good, but what if Zimmerman didn't have one, or hadn't used it? Wouldn't we now be in court discussing why Martin is now being trialled for murder and whether or not Zimmerman should have used or had gun to protect himself?

No, it would just have been a murder of Zimmerman. Just like many other murders, and in that area, only good for a few local news stories. If Zimmerman (and others who were also on the watch patrol), had not been there at all, then somebody's house would have been broken into and people hurt.

[Daniel]

But his job was to patrol the neighbourhood, just like in NZ where police don't have guns. Just because try font have guns doesn't mean they don't want to stop crime?

Job? If he was doing some sort of "job", then he would have heeded the advice of the 911 dispatcher who said that they didn't need him chasing people around. The law says you can defend yourself if you feel threatened, which if he was being pummeled then he had the right to do so, but to actually go and deliberately put yourself in a position where you could be threatened? That's the work of a complete and utter incompetent moron of an amateur.

What kind of Police officer would see someone (admittedly looking a bit suspicious) committing no crime and then choose to put themselves in a situation where that other person could then reasonably feel the need to attack them?

[Daniel]

What a surprise, Daniel follows his own Rule 1: "Rule 1 of the forum, always accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bias.I (sic) would say that though." (a quote complete with the typo)

I can't see any other reason why he would be accused of this other than someone being a complete knuckle dragger and being racist.

[leighton323]

Job? If he was doing some sort of "job", then he would have heeded the advice of the 911 dispatcher who said that they didn't need him chasing people around. The law says you can defend yourself if you feel threatened, which if he was being pummeled then he had the right to do so, but to actually go and deliberately put yourself in a position where you could be threatened? That's the work of a complete and utter incompetent moron of an amateur.

What kind of Police officer would see someone (admittedly looking a bit suspicious) committing no crime and then choose to put themselves in a situation where that other person could then reasonably feel the need to attack them?

Sorry, what was his job, wasn't it neighbourhood watch? Anyway the advice given to Zimmerman in this situation was probably the best thing to do but given still, usually the job of any sort of law enforcement/Neighbourhood watch/etc. is to prevent crime, not to let it happen and deal with it afterwards. That is what is spoken about here in NZ and i feel it is a fairly good way of protecting a community, Don't you?

[markabilly]

Sorry, what was his job, wasn't it neighbourhood watch? Anyway the advice given to Zimmerman in this situation was probably the best thing to do but given still, usually the job of any sort of law enforcement/Neighbourhood watch/etc. is to prevent crime, not to let it happen and deal with it afterwards. That is what is spoken about here in NZ and i feel it is a fairly good way of protecting a community, Don't you?

Correct. Except having lost sight of him in the dark as apparently Martin knew he was being followed and took evasive action, Zimmerman was on a path back to his car (which car and house was still inside his gated community) when Martin attacked. No gun was drawn, threatened to be used or used until Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating on him. Besides, the first question the police always ask when they arrive in response to such a call, is where did he go???? Does not do much good to say, well he might still be here somewhere, maybe he broke into somebody's home, or maybe he ran off to some other place out side of the homes in the gated community........

[Daniel]

Sorry, what was his job, wasn't it neighbourhood watch? Anyway the advice given to Zimmerman in this situation was probably the best thing to do but given still, usually the job of any sort of law enforcement/Neighbourhood watch/etc. is to prevent crime, not to let it happen and deal with it afterwards. That is what is spoken about here in NZ and i feel it is a fairly good way of protecting a community, Don't you?

I missed out the part of neighbourhood watch where the job of the wannabe cop is to pursue someone who appears to be committing no crime, then to cause a situation where one person feels threatened and attacks, then causing the other side to reply with deadly force.

[Tazio]

But his job was to patrol the neighbourhood, just like in NZ where police don't have guns. Just because they don't have guns doesn't mean they don't want to stop crime?Zimmerman was a volunteer with the local "Neighborhood Watch" busybodies, not a member of any law enforcement agency. :bulb:


A neighborhood watch may be organized as its own group or may simply be a function of a neighborhood association or other community association.

Neighborhood watches are not vigilante organizations. When suspecting criminal activities, members are encouraged to contact authorities and not to intervene.

[Daniel]

Correct. Except having lost sight of him in the dark as apparently Martin knew he was being followed and took evasive action, Zimmerman was on a path back to his car (which car and house was still inside his gated community) when Martin attacked. No gun was drawn, threatened to be used or used until Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating on him. Besides, the first question the police always ask when they arrive in response to such a call, is where did he go. Does not do much good to say, well he might still be here somewhere, maybe he broke into somebody's home, or maybe he ran off to some other place out side of the homes in the gated community........

So if I see you walking down the street at night doing absolutely nothing wrong, and Zimmerman never actually saw Martin do anything wrong, then what would your natural reaction be when I pursue you? :confused:

[markabilly]

I missed out the part of neighbourhood watch where the job of the wannabe cop is to pursue someone who appears to be committing no crime, then to cause a situation where one person feels threatened and attacks, then causing the other side to reply with deadly force.

Hello??? It is called trespass. The trespass was reported and Martin disappears. About two minutes later, Martin attacks Zimmerman. Zimmerman is unable to make another phone call and it is the neighbor who hears cries for help and sees Martin on top, pounding Zimmerman into the ground, who calls the police while the attack is still occurring. This call also results in the cries for help being recorded by police dispatchers. Martin's parents claim that is their "baby" screaming for help. Others say Zimmerman. The one who made the call to the police, says it is Zimmerman who is beneath Martin, screaming for help. There is a single muffled shot, and Martin falls off of Zimmerman.

[leighton323]

So if I see you walking down the street at night doing absolutely nothing wrong, and Zimmerman never actually saw Martin do anything wrong, then what would your natural reaction be when I pursue you? :confused:

Yes I understand what you mean, but we have to be realistic here, what's the point in having any sort of neighbourhood watch if they didn't actually try and prevent the crime. How many other thousands of times do you think this has occurred with other people who are protecting there community. I bet 99.99% of these times it's just a couple of kids mucking around somewhere they shouldn't be and then that 00.01% the guy ends up attacking you risking your life, and we have the case we have now. I know he shouldn't have put himself in a position to be attacked but I feel maybe, someone trying to attack and kill you isn't the first thing you are worried about or expecting.

[Daniel]

Hello??? It is called trespass. The trespass was reported and Martin disappears. About two minutes later, Martin attacks Zimmerman. Zimmerman is unable to make another phone call and it is the neighbor who hears cries for help and sees Martin on top, pounding Zimmerman into the ground, who calls the police while the attack is still occurring. This call also results in the cries for help being recorded by police dispatchers. Martin's parents claim that is their "baby" screaming for help. Others say Zimmerman. The one who made the call to the police, says it is Zimmerman who is beneath Martin, screaming for help. There is a single muffled shot, and Martin falls off of Zimmerman.

Congratulations for not answering my question, what would YOU do if I was pursuing you in the middle of the night and I wasn't clearly marked or identified as a Police officer?

[markabilly]

So if I see you walking down the street at night doing absolutely nothing wrong, and Zimmerman never actually saw Martin do anything wrong, then what would your natural reaction be when I pursue you? :confused:

First, I would not be trespassing into a gated community in the middle of the night. Second, if someone were following me that worried me, I would use my cell phone, and Martin had a cell phone that he could have used to call police but did not. Third, once I lost sight of you and you lost sight of me, I would leave. Fourth, I would not circle around and come after you, then beat and knock you to the ground, while you scream for someone to help you.

[Daniel]

Yes I understand what you mean, but we have to be realistic here, what's the point in having any sort of neighbourhood watch if they didn't actually try and prevent the crime. How many other thousands of times do you think this has occurred with other people who are protecting there community. I bet 99.99% of these times it's just a couple of kids mucking around somewhere they shouldn't be and then that 00.01% the guy ends up attacking you risking your life, and we have the case we have now. I know he shouldn't have put himself in a position to be attacked but I feel maybe, someone trying to attack and kill you isn't the first thing you are worried about or expecting.

Dude! We had a family of scum who lived up the road and their kids would act "suspicious" at all hours of the night, not once did I feel the need to put myself in a situation where I could get hurt or where there'd be the need for confrontation, the Police were called many times by various people and drove by and/or talked to the kids and no one got shot or hurt, THAT is how law and order works.

[Daniel]

First, I would not be trespassing into a gated community in the middle of the night. Second, if someone were following me that worried me, I would use my cell phone, and Martin had a cell phone that he could have used to call police but did not. Third, once I lost sight of you and you lost sight of me, I would leave. Fourth, I would not circle around and come after you, then beat and knock you to the ground, while you scream for someone to help you.

So if you had been dumb enough to trespass then I'd be justified in pursuing you and shooting you? You've got to remember that this kid was a 17 year old, most kids that age are idiots. Don't get me wrong, Martin could have done things differently and lived, but ultimately the adult and supposedly mature Neighbourhood Watch member shouldn't have created a situation which ended this way.

[markabilly]

And it is easy to talk about in the quiet of a debate or in the middle of a courtroom long after it is over. Hindsight is perfect as they say. It is all together different in the few seconds of stress, panic, fear, pain and uncertainty, with your life hanging in the balance. Speaking of which, it is my bedtime.

[leighton323]

Dude! We had a family of scum who lived up the road and their kids would act "suspicious" at all hours of the night, not once did I feel the need to put myself in a situation where I could get hurt or where there'd be the need for confrontation, the Police were called many times by various people and drove by and/or talked to the kids and no one got shot or hurt, THAT is how law and order works.

But I still refer back to the fact that he was doing a job, not saying it was his job, but he was part of an organisation or community group that had wanted someone to keep an eye out on the community, I'm sure you weren't part of a group that was trying to protect the community. If there was such a group I'm sure they would have kept an eye out for these kids. I know i wouldn't do what he did but i can see why he did. what if Zimmerman had prevented a crime that night. How was he supposed to know the circumstances which were about to unfold. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[markabilly]

So if you had been dumb enough to trespass then I'd be justified in pursuing you and shooting you? You've got to remember that this kid was a 17 year old, most kids that age are idiots. Don't get me wrong, Martin could have done things differently and lived, but ultimately the adult and supposedly mature Neighbourhood Watch member shouldn't have created a situation which ended this way.

You would be justified in watching me to see what sort of evil I might be up and calling the police. Which is what Zimmerman did. Martin may have been 17 but was more than capable of beating someone to death. It just happened that, much to the probable surprise of Martin, Zimmerman had a gun and did not just lie there and get beaten to death. Instead of attacking Zimmerman, Martin could have attacked someone else who did not have a gun---or Zimmerman could have been unarmed. As you put it, go looking for trouble, you just might find it. Martin found it.

[Daniel]

And it is easy to talk about in the quiet of a debate or in the middle of a courtroom long after it is over. Hindsight is perfect as they say. It is all together different in the few seconds of stress, panic, fear, pain and uncertainty, with your life hanging in the balance. Speaking of which, it is my bedtime.

Hindsight, anyone with half a brain wouldn't have pushed it further. If I saw someone who looked suspicious, but was commiting no crime, I wouldn't create a situation where possibly innocently intentioned actions on both sides create a situation where one or more people get hurt or killed. It's common sense sadly.

If Zimmerman had actually seen some sort of crime committed then you could understand him pursuing Martin, but there was no crime committed.

[Daniel]

But I still refer back to the fact that he was doing a job, not saying it was his job, but he was part of an organisation or community group that had wanted someone to keep an eye out on the community, I'm sure you weren't part of a group that was trying to protect the community. If there was such a group I'm sure they would have kept an eye out for these kids. I know i wouldn't do what he did but i can see why he did. what if Zimmerman had prevented a crime that night. How was he supposed to know the circumstances which were about to unfold. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Can I ask a question Leighton? How old are you?

[markabilly]

Dude! We had a family of scum who lived up the road and their kids would act "suspicious" at all hours of the night, not once did I feel the need to put myself in a situation where I could get hurt or where there'd be the need for confrontation, the Police were called many times by various people and drove by and/or talked to the kids and no one got shot or hurt, THAT is how law and order works.

No, you chose to live in fear and avoid confrontation, leaving the problems to repeat themselves over and over again. Ask Richard martin about how your country fails to protect victims and leaves the "family of scum" to run wild. Oh well, I have more important things to do.

[leighton323]

Can I ask a question Leighton? How old are you?

Hahah call me Matt, my middle name is Leighton, and why do you ask?

[markabilly]

And once and for all, Zimmerman was not "pursuing" him. If he had wanted to do that, he could have pulled the gun and taken him prisoner. He did not. He was watching him, and obviously not very closely, as he lost track of Martin.

[Daniel]

No, you chose to live in fear and avoid confrontation, leaving the problems to repeat themselves over and over again. Ask Richard martin about how your country fails to protect victims and leaves the "family of scum" to run wild. Oh well, I have more important things to do.

What victims? No single digit IQ kids were making noise late at night and being a nuisance, all managed by a few drivebys by the Police. I don't live in fear, it's warm at the moment and I feel completely safe sleeping with the windows open :)

[Daniel]

And once and for all, Zimmerman was not "pursuing" him. If he had wanted to do that, he could have pulled the gun and taken him prisoner. He did not. He was watching him, and obviously not very closely, as he lost track of Martin.

Well he was, Martin was going in one direction, Zimmerman chose to go in the same direction purely because that was the direction Martin was going, that's the very definition of pursuing someone.

[Starter]

Don't get me wrong, Martin could have done things differently and lived, but ultimately the adult and supposedly mature Neighbourhood Watch member shouldn't have created a situation which ended this way.
This, very surprisingly since it's from Daniel, is the closest thing to the truth in the whole thread. He then returns to norm and misquotes and exaggerates what others have posted.

It could have ended in a verbal confrontation or with both on their phones calling 911 and being embarrassed as heck when they both found out what the other was doing. Instead Martin chose to escalate it to a violent confrontation and paid the price for misjudging his opponent.

[Daniel]

Of course Martin did the wrong thing in hindsight, but what would most 17 year olds do?

[leighton323]

Of course Martin did the wrong thing in hindsight, but what would most 17 year olds do?

Most is a slight exaggeration.. Less than than 1% Easily. But yes I can see your understand about irrational thought from someone very young.

[Rollo]

Instead Martin chose to escalate it to a violent confrontation and paid the price for misjudging his opponent.

You can not possibly say that - no one can.

The only two witnesses were Martin and Zimmerman and Martin is dead. Forensically it's very easy to say that Martin was standing over Zimmerman at the time the shots were fired but that's it.
This case hinges on the standard that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the simple fact is that in this case the burden of proof which rests on the prosecution (not the defence) renders that impossible because there's doubt all over this.
The jury has delivered a fair verdict.

The utter stupidity about this is that this case even exists. Culturally there is a position which allows people to carry weapons, which escalates the problem and the castle doctrine which appears to be uniquely American (I've done previous research on this and found nothing in English Common Law which it supposedly rests on - LINK (http://rollo75.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/horse-1142-so-called-castle-doctrine-is.html))

[anthonyvop]

So if you had been dumb enough to trespass then I'd be justified in pursuing you and shooting you?

Yep.

Not saying i would do it but I would find anyone perfectly justified in shooting a hooded trespasser.

My property is more valuable to me than the life of a criminal.


BTW
Martin was in Sanford Fl because he was suspended from school for dealing illegal drugs. He also had a history of disciplinary problems in school which were inadmissible as evidence,
Burglar Tools that were proven to be Martin's was found to have been hidden in the immediate vicinity.
It was proven in court that Zimmerman was being assaulted and was fearing for his life.
Never did Zimmerman give any indication that race was a motive for his actions.
Martin, on the other hand used a vile, racial insult when talking about Zimmerman.

Some more facts:

911 operators are not police officers and have no power whatsoever to tell anyone what to do. In fact most have a remedial education and can only garner a low level, government job and so are usually never paid attention to. "Just send the cops OK!"

In the US we are not so oppressed and weak to solely depend on the police to protect ourselves. (Europeans please refrain from commenting on this one. Your recent history with Communism, Fascism and Monarchies along with present lack or personal freedom precludes any possible standing in disparaging that USA on this.)

[Tazio]

But I still refer back to the fact that he was doing a job, not saying it was his job, but he was part of an organisation or community group that had wanted someone to keep an eye out on the community, I'm sure you weren't part of a group that was trying to protect the community. If there was such a group I'm sure they would have kept an eye out for these kids. I know i wouldn't do what he did but i can see why he did. what if Zimmerman had prevented a crime that night. How was he supposed to know the circumstances which were about to unfold. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. By listening to the police operator/dispatcher who told Zimm' in no uncertain terms: "do not persue" Instead Zimm' decided to try and play Dirty Harry only he aint freakin' bad enough to kick a 17yo ass and ended up getting his ass kicked, and I guarntee he has a whole mess more ass-kickins comin', and I believe diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirectly. :arrowed: :bulb:

[Rollo]

In the US we are not so oppressed and weak to solely depend on the police to protect ourselves.

Or rather, do you not properly pay people to enforce or administer the law properly? By inference you've just made an argument that American police are not competent enough at their jobs.
I'll accept that.

[Tazio]

Or rather, do you not properly pay people to enforce or administer the law properly? By inference you've just made an argument that American police are not competent enough at their jobs.
I'll accept that.I wont argue with that as some constabularies are better than others. But I bet Any Cop who has graduated from a major cites academy would not have gotten his ass in the kind of crack that Zimm did. When he says his nightly prayers, he should include in them: God please help me from becoming even more of an idiot!

[Roamy]

So if I see you walking down the street at night doing absolutely nothing wrong, and Zimmerman never actually saw Martin do anything wrong, then what would your natural reaction be when I pursue you? :confused:

to beat your head in Daniel - what else

[Koz]

I missed out the part of neighbourhood watch where the job of the wannabe cop is to pursue someone who appears to be committing no crime, then to cause a situation where one person feels threatened and attacks, then causing the other side to reply with deadly force.

Of course Martin did the wrong thing in hindsight, but what would most 17 year olds do?

While being stalked and/or followed or in any another form intimidated, would most 17 year olds have the presence of mind to get rid of their burglary tools before going on to assault the person who so threatened them?

[anthonyvop]

I wont argue with that as some constabularies are better than others. But I bet Any Cop who has graduated from a major cites academy would not have gotten his ass in the kind of crack that Zimm did. When he says his nightly prayers, he should include in them: God please help me from becoming even more of an idiot!

Most cops would have turned tail and run, screaming for back up allowing the criminal to continue.

BTW When Martin was looking for a home to break into the cops were nowhere to be found but Zimmerman was there.

[vhatever]

I wont argue with that as some constabularies are better than others. But I bet Any Cop who has graduated from a major cites academy would not have gotten his ass in the kind of crack that Zimm did. When he says his nightly prayers, he should include in them: God please help me from becoming even more of an idiot!

well, being a moron isn't illegal. if it were, Obama wouldn't even be able to get elected to student council. besides, was he really that stupid? He's fat and happy, and he's about to clean NBC's pockets for megamillions, and will never have to work again in his life. Hhe showed the world the savage racist nature of many leftists today,especially black ones, and made Darwin smile just a little bit.

[Tazio]

well, being a moron isn't illegal. He's fat and happy, and he' never have to work again in his life. Hhe showed the world the savage and made Darwin smile just a little bit. And his ass is grass!!

[vhatever]

And his ass is grass!!

Ya right, what are you gonna do about it? his ass is going to be sitting in a lounger all day staring at some beautiful sunset while sipping on a mytie, where all the local women are half dressed and all the men are his servants. All thanks to people like you.

[Tazio]

You don't want to confront me.........Scro'. trust me.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkPGlVqqEP0]

[vhatever]

You are gonna fail at posting a youtube link? wow, george must be shaking in his boots.

[Tazio]

:bulb: I guess we'll see!!....scro :dork:

[keysersoze]

This thread once again confirms how liberals debate--largely ignoring the law and the facts of the case, while hurling insult not only at GZ but also fellow posters.

[Tazio]

This thread once again confirms how liberals debate--largely ignoring the law and the facts of the case, while hurling insult not only at GZ but also fellow posters.

Namely who? :confused: :angel: Such a claim requires documentation!. :bulb: :bulb: :bulb:

[Tazio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7HPQM0Jgg

[Roamy]

yeah the liberals want the Italian court system - just keep trying them until they are found guilty.

[Roamy]

I don't get it Alca - Why are you digging up Whitney?

[Daniel]

While being stalked and/or followed or in any another form intimidated, would most 17 year olds have the presence of mind to get rid of their burglary tools before going on to assault the person who so threatened them?

Can I just ask for a link to this evidence of him getting rid of a burglary tool on the night? Nowhere seems to mention it, please don't like to any websites like http://www.liberalsallsuck.com or http://www.peoplewithgenitalwartsfortruth.com or anyting like that, something reputable, I'll even accept a link to Fox.

[Daniel]

No need

George Zimmerman trial: Chris Serino, lead detective in case of Trayvon Martin killing, takes stand again Tuesday - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57591978-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-chris-serino-lead-detective-in-case-of-trayvon-martin-killing-takes-stand-again-tuesday/)

A burglary tool found 5 or 6 days later. This sort of thing would have been completely inadmissable in court due to the time it took to turn up....... Anyone who's watched Law and Order knows that :rotflmao:

[Tazio]

wow, george must be shaking in his boots.
-- His GPS monitor has been cut off and George Zimmerman is free -- but only legally.
Zimmerman fears for his life. He's a reviled figure to millions, despite his acquittal Saturday night in Trayvon Martin's killing.
Zimmerman's attorney describes him as a marked man.
Zimmerman, 29, has kept his address under wraps for more than a year and worn a disguise whenever he left his four walls. He has often strapped on body armor, according to O'Mara."I think he has more reason now than ever to think that people are trying to kill him because they express they're trying to kill him, all the time, every day.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/george-zimmerman-fears-for-his-life-could-face-new-charges-in-civil-suit-or-civil-rights-suit


Sounds like he is a little concerned about his bro health to me.....Scro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkPGlVqqEP0&feature=player_embedded

:bulb: :dozey: :bulb: :bulb: :dozey:

[markabilly]

You can not possibly say that - no one can.

The only two witnesses were Martin and Zimmerman and Martin is dead. Forensically it's very easy to say that Martin was standing over Zimmerman at the time the shots were fired but that's it.
This case hinges on the standard that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the simple fact is that in this case the burden of proof which rests on the prosecution (not the defence) renders that impossible because there's doubt all over this.
The jury has delivered a fair verdict.

The utter stupidity about this is that this case even exists. Culturally there is a position which allows people to carry weapons, which escalates the problem and the castle doctrine which appears to be uniquely American (I've done previous research on this and found nothing in English Common Law which it supposedly rests on - LINK (http://rollo75.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/horse-1142-so-called-castle-doctrine-is.html))

I agree that the jury delivered the only verdict that they could based on reasonable doubt. While I figured that OJ Simpson really did it, the jury delivered the proper verdict, as I have never seen such a circus. There are three levels of proof. In a civil case, preponderance of evidence. In some mixed type cases, it is clear and convincing. In the OJ case as well as Zimmerman, the prosecution did not even get to the clear and convincing level. Now in the OJ case, there was evidence that could have been clear and convincing, if properly presented, but they failed to do it to make it such. As to there being only two witnesses, that is incorrect as there is a third witness I spoke of in my first post. He did not see the beginning of the struggle, but heard the screaming and identified it as coming from the man on bottom who was being beaten by the man on top. He says Martin was delivering marital art style blows to Zimmerman. Based on clothing, the man on top was Martin. It is his phone call that contains the screaming that has been referenced repeatedly as to one of them screaming, help me. The shot is fired, but apparently not picked up in the recording. This case was tried based on the murder charge which requires an intent to kill or seriously injure without it being a planned premeditated killing (and some claim it should have been tried on a pure manslaughter type basis of negligence where it might have been more successful based on a lower level of intent). ----------------- The so-called castle doctrine had nothing to do with the trial, although under Florida law, there is a castle or stand your ground law, but it had nothing to do with the trial in this case, and was not even submitted to the jury. Only the self defense issue which in order to be answered, there must be a finding on the murder or manslaughter charge.

[markabilly]

George Zimmerman fears for his life, could face new charges in civil suit or civil rights suit (http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/george-zimmerman-fears-for-his-life-could-face-new-charges-in-civil-suit-or-civil-rights-suit)


Sounds like he is a little concerned about his bro health to me.....Scro

Idiocracy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkPGlVqqEP0&feature=player_embedded)

:bulb: :dozey: :bulb: :bulb: :dozey: G
Given all that is going on, he should be. What all happened here, re-affirms in my mind, why I would not want to be part of a so-called watch team, and why, even though eligible, I have no interest in obtaining or carrying a concealed weapon pursuant to a permit. I had my "fun times" in my 20's with such activities, and will not be doing it anymore.

[markabilly]

BTW-- When asked at the scene what happened by police immediately after they arrived, Zimmerman said Martin reappeared and approached him, so Zimmerman reached for his cell phone in his pocket to call police, and Martin angrily attacked him by hitting him in the face and pinning him to the ground. Zimmerman screamed for help, but no one responded and the beating continued.

[Spafranco]

A complete and total miscarriage of justice and another reason that the archaic second amendment be looked at.

It's akin to a person saying booo and then being shot as you felt threatened. How do you determine when someone considers an action a threat.

That is an emotional point of response. How was Zimmerman , a 27 year 'mature man' acquitted? Utterly baffling.

[vhatever]

A complete and total miscarriage of justice and another reason that the archaic second amendment be looked at.

It's akin to a person saying booo and then being shot as you felt threatened. How do you determine when someone considers an action a threat.

That is an emotional point of response. How was Zimmerman , a 27 year 'mature man' acquitted? Utterly baffling.

The miscarriage of justice was charges ever being brought with zero evidence of wrongdoing. The jury has to believe that the person in question, given their background/ability/health/etc. that they could reasonably be in fear of serious bodily harm or death. Further, they have to believe a reasonable person in that same situation could possibly be afraid of harm/death. If both of those are satisfied, it's self defense.

why do you dare to even speak on miscarriages of justice when it's clear you know absolutely nothing about the law or due process?

[anthonyvop]

A complete and total miscarriage of justice and another reason that the archaic second amendment be looked at..

Why? because you didn't get the result the media told you to expect.

Frankly I am pissed that the government wasted my money on a case that had no reason to be prosecuted. But that is life under the Obama administration.

[schmenke]

A complete and total miscarriage of justice ....

How so?

1. It was up to the prosecution to convince the jury of culpability. They failed to do that.
2. It was the prosecution who filed the second degree murder charge. A lesser charge of manslaughter may have yielded a different verdict.

[Gregor-y]

Frankly I am pissed that the government wasted my money on a case that had no reason to be prosecuted. But that is life under the Obama administration.
In this case it's the Rick Scott administration. And you can avoid living under it by not living in Florida.

[D-Type]

I am not a US resident and I do not understand the nuances of US Law. Can somebodey please clarify whether being a member of a neighbourhood watch group is considered legally to being a member of a "A well regulated Militia" in the sense that the writers of the Second Amendment intended?

[anthonyvop]

In this case it's the Rick Scott administration. And you can avoid living under it by not living in Florida.

Scott appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether charges should be brought up. Something which I was 100% against as the local constabulary already said there was no case. It was afterwards that the Obama's dept of Justice really applied the pressure.

Where would you suggest living? That bastion of free thinkers that is Chicago Illinois? How many Black Youths were murdered this weekend in Chicago? 3? 4? 6?

How many are out protesting about that?

While I voted for Scott it does in no way, shape or form means that I agree with him on 100% of the issues. I have never met anyone, let alone a politician, that I agree with on everything.

[Starter]

I am not a US resident and I do not understand the nuances of US Law. Can somebodey please clarify whether being a member of a neighbourhood watch group is considered legally to being a member of a "A well regulated Militia" in the sense that the writers of the Second Amendment intended?
Assuming you didn't post that with tongue in cheek, no, there is no similarity between the two. Suspect you were just "funnin" us.

[Spafranco]

The miscarriage of justice was charges ever being brought with zero evidence of wrongdoing. The jury has to believe that the person in question, given their background/ability/health/etc. that they could reasonably be in fear of serious bodily harm or death. Further, they have to believe a reasonable person in that same situation could possibly be afraid of harm/death. If both of those are satisfied, it's self defense.

why do you dare to even speak on miscarriages of justice when it's clear you know absolutely nothing about the law or due process?
You have this condescending attitude of being a know-it-all and that others (me) are not informed. You make sweeping accusations that encompass all of the law and due process of same.
If you are a professor of criminal law and specifically Florida law, then you could comment. Since you are not spare me your pathetic judgements and excuse yourself from personal insults.

[anthonyvop]

I am not a US resident and I do not understand the nuances of US Law. Can somebodey please clarify whether being a member of a neighbourhood watch group is considered legally to being a member of a "A well regulated Militia" in the sense that the writers of the Second Amendment intended?


I am going to pretend you are being serious and answer your question.

It is perfectly justifiable as a basic human right to defend oneself from bodily harm. When Martin jumped on George Zimmerman, knocking him down and then proceeded to drive his head into the pavement he waved any right to his life.

[keysersoze]

A complete and total miscarriage of justice and another reason that the archaic second amendment be looked at.

It's akin to a person saying booo and then being shot as you felt threatened. How do you determine when someone considers an action a threat.

That is an emotional point of response. How was Zimmerman , a 27 year 'mature man' acquitted? Utterly baffling.

Oh, I forgot the other liberal argument methods, but Spanfranco just reminded me:

1) mis-characterizing
2) righteous indignation

[keysersoze]

You have this condescending attitude of being a know-it-all and that others (me) are not informed. You make sweeping accusations that encompass all of the law and due process of same.
If you are a professor of criminal law and specifically Florida law, then you could comment. Since you are not spare me your pathetic judgements and excuse yourself from personal insults.

Vhatever has continually provided cogent, well-written comments on this thread and you repeatedly fail to make any substantive responses.

[ShiftingGears]

Definitely the right decision. Cue inevitable Al Sharpton race-baiting.

[Rollo]

It is perfectly justifiable as a basic human right to defend oneself from bodily harm. When Martin jumped on George Zimmerman, knocking him down and then proceeded to drive his head into the pavement he waved any right to his life.

Pray tell, how do you know this? You do not know the circumstances.

You can't honestly say that Martins' attack wasn't provoked; mainly because apart from Martin and Zimmerman, there were no other witnesses. Therefore any remarks about this being "perfectly justifiable" or even a "proportionate response" are entirely conjecture because no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman would know what the response was in proportion to. Zimmerman is a biased party and must be treated as an unreliable narrator and Martin is dead.

You do not know the circumstances which happened. Nobody apart from Martin and Zimmerman do. For that reason it is impossible for a prosecution to construct a case providing proof beyond reasonable doubt; why the jury delivered a not guilty verdict.

[Ranger]

I don't have any problem with the right to defend yourself.

But then again, I still struggle to comprehend how Zimmerman got no conviction, while Marissa Alexander got 20 years in jail... go figure.

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/)


(CBS) - Last Friday, Jacksonville mother Marissa Alexander was sentenced by a Florida judge to 20 years in prison for firing what she says was a "warning shot" into the wall after a physical altercation with her husband, Rico Gray.

The case has set off yet another controversy involving the state's "stand your ground" law, which is under intense scrutiny after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February. Critics, including Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), are crying foul.

[Daniel]

I am going to pretend you are being serious and answer your question.

It is perfectly justifiable as a basic human right to defend oneself from bodily harm. When Martin jumped on George Zimmerman, knocking him down and then proceeded to drive his head into the pavement he waved any right to his life.

and you know what Tony, I don't actually disagree with you, once that happened and Zimmerman feared for his life, then he was justified in doing what he did...... but did the situation that happened really need to happen? Until that point Zimmerman had been the aggressor and you could argue that Martin was merely making use of the stand your ground law as he quite possibly feared for his life.

If you think about it, the law created a situation whereby both people were quite entitled to do what they did and with predictable results.

[Daniel]

Spanfranco just reminded me:

1) mis-characterizing
2) righteous indignation

I have to agree (please note that I removed your knuckle dragging liberal comments), the only verdict that could be reached (due to the fact that Zimmerman shot the only other witness) was not guilty. But the law does need to be looked at, should the law really allow people to go chasing trouble and then when they get it, to go shooting people?

[Dave B]

Fortunately in the UK Neighbourhood Watch consists of old folk peeping round their net curtains and tutting a lot, not "standing their ground" by following unarmed teenagers about tooled up. And yet it's arguably more effective if you compare the crime rates of our respective countries.

[markabilly]

Pray tell, how do you know this? You do not know the circumstances.

You can't honestly say that Martins' attack wasn't provoked; mainly because apart from Martin and Zimmerman, there were no other witnesses. Therefore any remarks about this being "perfectly justifiable" or even a "proportionate response" are entirely conjecture because no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman would know what the response was in proportion to. Zimmerman is a biased party and must be treated as an unreliable narrator and Martin is dead.

You do not know the circumstances which happened. Nobody apart from Martin and Zimmerman do. For that reason it is impossible for a prosecution to construct a case providing proof beyond reasonable doubt; why the jury delivered a not guilty verdict.

The jury believed that Zimmerman was over eager and had come to be the only one who cared enough to try to protect the residents--one juror cited the fact that Zimmerman had gone to the aid of a person whose residence had been broken into, bought a lock and replaced a lock to the woman's backdoor that had been broken, when someone broke in and robbed her. This juror said none accepted the prosecution's wannabe cop theory. She also said that given the circumstantial evidence and the crime scene evidence, they believed Martin threw the first punch. They believed the witness who said Martin was on top and Zimmerman on bottom who was crying for help. They believed that Martin did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, but thought that Zimmerman's statement that he thought Martin was trying to get the gun was probably what Zimmerman believed. ------------------------- ------------------------------What they did decide was that regardless of who followed who and who threw the first punch, Zimmerman was in fear for his life underneath Martin and given the clear and really never disputed evidence of the ongoing beating from Martin, Zimmerman was justified in believing he had no other choice but to shoot to save his life.http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HA.72730682563&pid=1.7&w=266&h=129&c=7&rs=1

[markabilly]

I have to agree (please note that I removed your knuckle dragging liberal comments), the only verdict that could be reached (due to the fact that Zimmerman shot the only other witness) was not guilty. But the law does need to be looked at, should the law really allow people to go chasing trouble and then when they get it, to go shooting people?

Once again, not true. There was another witness and forensic evidence that gave clear testimony that in those last few seconds, Zimmerman reasonably believed the force to be necessary to keep him from being beaten to death

[markabilly]

I saw the interview late last night on CNN. For those who want an incredible and clear account of the trial, it may be found here:http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3502047/zimmerman-juror-speaks-out-transcript.html ---------some parts of it
COOPER: When George Zimmerman said that Trayvon Marten reached for his gun, there was no DNA evidence. The defense said, well, had testimony in, well, it could have gotten washed off in the rain or the like. Do you believe that Trayvon Martin reached for George Zimmerman's gun?
JUROR: I think he might have. I think George probably thought that he did, because George was the one who knew that George was carrying a gun. And he was aware of that.
COOPER: You can't say for sure whether or not Trayvon Martin knew that George Zimmerman was carrying a gun?
JUROR: No.
COOPER: So you can't say for sure whether or not Trayvon Martin reached for that gun?
JUROR: Right. But that doesn't make it right. I mean, it doesn't make it -- there's not a right or a wrong. Even if he did reach for the gun, it doesn't make any difference.
COOPER: How so?
JUROR: Well, because George had a right to protect himself at that point.
COOPER: So you believe that George Zimmerman really felt his life was in danger?
JUROR: I do. I really do.
COOPER: Do you think Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?
JUROR: I think he did.
COOPER: What makes you think that?
JUROR: Because of the evidence of on the T, on the sidewalk, where George says he was punched, there was evidence of his flashlight and keys there, and then a little bit further down, there was a flashlight that he was carrying. And I think that's where Trayvon hit him.
COOPER: So you think, based on the testimony you heard, you believe that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor?

JUROR: I think the roles changed. I think, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him and get the one-over, up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3502047_p4/zimmerman-juror-speaks-out-transcript.html#storylink=cpy

[markabilly]

More of same:
COOPER: Why do you think George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin suspicious then?

JUROR: Because he was cutting through the back, it was raining. He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. But I mean, that's George's rendition of it, but I think the situation where Trayvon got into him being late at night, dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking, if that's exactly what happened, is suspicious. And George said that he didn't recognize who he was.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3502047_p4/zimmerman-juror-speaks-out-transcript.html#storylink=cpy

[Starter]

..... because no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman would know what the response was in proportion to. Zimmerman is a biased party and must be treated as an unreliable narrator and Martin is dead.
Martin, were he alive, would also be a biased party and unreliable narrator of course.

[donKey jote]

Fortunately in the UK Neighbourhood Watch consists of old folk peeping round their net curtains and tutting a lot

the cake-gargling granny brigade :p

[donKey jote]

JUROR: I think the roles changed. I think, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him and get the one-over, up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.

yep

[markabilly]

more--and there will be more tonight:
COOPER: The prosecution tried to paint George Zimmerman as a wannabe cop, overeager. Did you buy that?
JUROR: I think he's overeager to help people. Like the lady who got broken in and robbed, while her baby and her were upstairs, he came over and he offered her a lock for her backsliding glass door. He offered her his phone number, his wife's phone number. He told her that she could come over if she felt stressed or she needed anybody, come over to their house, sit down, have dinner. Not anybody -- I mean, you have to have a heart to do that and care and help people.
COOPER: So you didn't find it creepy that -- you didn't find it a negative? You didn't buy the prosecution when they kind of said he was a wannabe cop?

JUROR: No, I didn't at all.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3502047_p4/zimmerman-juror-speaks-out-transcript.html#storylink=cpy

[Daniel]

Once again, not true. There was another witness and forensic evidence that gave clear testimony that in those last few seconds, Zimmerman reasonably believed the force to be necessary to keep him from being beaten to death

Did you actually read my post? I was agreeing with you......

[markabilly]

Anyway for those interested, part 2 will be presented tonight. Interesting is that she says she was shocked about all the media circus after the trial, and is giving her interview without being paid. She has also considered writing a book, but says if she does, she will not receive money from it.

[markabilly]

Did you actually read my post? I was agreeing with you......
There was a witness to when the fight was on-going. There were the 911 calls. What I disagreed
was this:the only verdict that could be reached (due to the fact that Zimmerman shot the only other witness)

[Daniel]

There was a witness to when the fight was on-going. There were the 911 calls. What I disagreed
was this:the only verdict that could be reached (due to the fact that Zimmerman shot the only other witness)

Did anyone actually see things happening clearly though? That's what I mean in terms of a witness.

[Daniel]

Anyway for those interested, part 2 will be presented tonight. Interesting is that she says she was shocked about all the media circus after the trial, and is giving her interview without being paid. She has also considered writing a book, but says if she does, she will not receive money from it.

The part that most people are trying to emphasize, and also what she mentions as well, is that Zimmerman created the situation, he should have stopped before it got there, he put Martin in a position where HE clearly felt threatened and chose to become the aggressor.

[Starter]

The part that most people are trying to emphasize, and also what she mentions as well, is that Zimmerman created the situation, he should have stopped before it got there, he put Martin in a position where HE clearly felt threatened and chose to become the aggressor.
Martin "clearly" felt threatened? Or was he just just pissed off? Not you, I or anyone else knows that for sure.

[vhatever]

I don't have any problem with the right to defend yourself.

But then again, I still struggle to comprehend how Zimmerman got no conviction, while Marissa Alexander got 20 years in jail... go figure.

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/)


The only thing in common between those two cases was a gun was involved. Main reason she got such a high sentence was the mandatory minimums they have in Florida for gun crimes.

[vhatever]

The part that most people are trying to emphasize, and also what she mentions as well, is that Zimmerman created the situation, he should have stopped before it got there, he put Martin in a position where HE clearly felt threatened and chose to become the aggressor.

They both could have made different choices to alter the situation that night. But zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal, and he had legitimate reasons to be concerned about crime in his neighborhood to begin with, as well as to be suspicious of martin. Martin decided to break the law and assault someone for no good reason. He had a good 4-5 minutes to get home when his house was only 30 or so seconds away. He wasn't scared. He wanted a fight.

[schmenke]

.... But zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal....

Nor was Martin.

[vhatever]

Nor was Martin.


You mean besides assault and/or attempted murder?

[schmenke]

You mean besides assault and/or attempted murder?

Before Zimmerman approached him, Martin was doing nothing illegal.

[vhatever]

Before Zimmerman approached him, Martin was doing nothing illegal.


In summary, zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal and martin was. Welcome to 4 posts ago, Matlock.

[SGWilko]

Fortunately in the UK Neighbourhood Watch consists of old folk peeping round their net curtains and tutting a lot.

Is also a question posted on online house insurance applications which can aid in reducing the cost of your premiums....

....should therefore be seen as a positive

[Starter]

Before Zimmerman approached him, Martin was doing nothing illegal.
Exactly where, in all the testimony, did it come out that Zimmerman approached Martin?

[anthonyvop]

I don't have any problem with the right to defend yourself.

But then again, I still struggle to comprehend how Zimmerman got no conviction, while Marissa Alexander got 20 years in jail... go figure.

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/)

Did you actually read the report?

Look past the feminist outrage.

She left the room to retrieve a gun and shot at a man who was not physically threatening her.....All this with her children in the room.

[anthonyvop]

and you know what Tony, I don't actually disagree with you, once that happened and Zimmerman feared for his life, then he was justified in doing what he did...... but did the situation that happened really need to happen? Until that point Zimmerman had been the aggressor and you could argue that Martin was merely making use of the stand your ground law as he quite possibly feared for his life.

If you think about it, the law created a situation whereby both people were quite entitled to do what they did and with predictable results.

You forget one important issue. Martin was TRESPASSING! Stand your ground doesn't apply when committing a crime.

[anthonyvop]

Fortunately in the UK Neighbourhood Watch consists of old folk peeping round their net curtains and tutting a lot, not "standing their ground" by following unarmed teenagers about tooled up. And yet it's arguably more effective if you compare the crime rates of our respective countries.

A higher crime rate is one the downsides of not living in a police state like the UK where you can be arrested for just having an opinion.

[Daniel]

A higher crime rate is one the downsides of not living in a police state like the UK where you can be arrested for just having an opinion.

Personally I'd rather live in a country like yours where goats are free to go around eating children.

[anthonyvop]

Before Zimmerman approached him, Martin was doing nothing illegal.


Try again........He was trespassing.

[Daniel]

You forget one important issue. Martin was TRESPASSING! Stand your ground doesn't apply when committing a crime.

Trespassing? He was staying in the same community?

[Spafranco]

Vhatever has continually provided cogent, well-written comments on this thread and you repeatedly fail to make any substantive responses.
Again, that would be a matter of opinion.

For my sake, please show me the "cogent" arguments.

For the life of me all I see is you vwhatever, Don Juan or whatever his name is and the always dramatic comments from Tonyprop with the 'driving his head into the pavement'.

Suddenly, the obvious raises it's head. You turn it into a political matter rather than a crime.

You had this guy acquitted before there was even a trial.

Another person killed as a result of violence through the use of a gun. A person who could not even get into a police department.

Then the dramatic statements of self defense and the 'driving his head into the pavement' giving the impression of a seething megalomaniac

rather than a 17 year old kid.

Someone posted images of what is deemed the injuries received by Zimmerman as he feared for his life. If his head was being 'pounded' into the

pavement he would have presented with contusions causing a severe (marked quantity of blood) loss of blood due to the lacerations he would

inevitably have had. Was there any subdural hematoma reported? Any concussion?

It's akin to kristallnacht where it mattered nothing about who you were but what you were.

[anthonyvop]

Trespassing? He was staying in the same community?


He was trespassing on other people's property.

[anthonyvop]

Then the dramatic statements of self defense and the 'driving his head into the pavement' giving the impression of a seething megalomaniac

rather than a 17 year old kid.



The argument about his age is just a ploy to prey on emotions.

I have seen some 17 year old "kids" who would and could gladly tear you into bits.

BTW at 5/11 Martin stood over 4 inches taller than George Zimmerman.

[Spafranco]

The part that most people are trying to emphasize, and also what she mentions as well, is that Zimmerman created the situation, he should have stopped before it got there, he put Martin in a position where HE clearly felt threatened and chose to become the aggressor.

You are absolutely correct. How the jury dismissed the fact that Zimmerman was told to stay in the car by the

police dispatcher was ignored is hard to fathom.

[Spafranco]

Martin "clearly" felt threatened? Or was he just just pissed off? Not you, I or anyone else knows that for sure.

So you are of the same opinion concerning Zimmerman. One very clear issue is the fact that he disobeyed a police dispatcher.

[Spafranco]

The argument about his age is just a ploy to prey on emotions.

I have seen some 17 year old "kids" who would and could gladly tear you into bits.

BTW at 5/11 Martin stood over 4 inches taller than George Zimmerman.

What has that got to do with the price of bread?

How heavy is Zimmerman?

I am 6feet 1 inch. I have a nephew about the same age as Martin. 6'4'. Could I wrestle him to the ground without having to kill him? Certainly I

could. My mass as is the case with Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin would be sufficient to repel any attempts at him trying to overcome me.

[vhatever]

You are absolutely correct. How the jury dismissed the fact that Zimmerman was told to stay in the car by the

police dispatcher was ignored is hard to fathom.

1. He was never told to stay in the car. Nice lie that I hear the traybots repeat often, though.
2. He wasn't talking to the police, just a regular dispatcher on a non-emergency line
3. Even if he were told that, he is not at all legally required to listen to them.
4. It's irrelevant to the self defense claim.
5. In summary, it never happened, and even if it did it would be irrelevant and not illegal

[donKey jote]

BTW at 5/11 Martin stood over 4 inches taller than George Zimmerman.

at 5/7 you shouldn't go looking for trouble, unless the size of your gun compensates for your (lack of) stature :andrea: :laugh:

[Spafranco]

A higher crime rate is one the downsides of not living in a police state like the UK where you can be arrested for just having an opinion.

Here we go again. Have you ever been outside of the US in Europe in one of those so called police states, you know, places where the police

don't even carry guns.

When was the last time someone or a case of someone being sent to trial for uttering something you perceive as OK here in the US but to be criminal in the UK?

I have this sneaking suspicion that you are jealous of the British because of their freedom to walk the streets at night. Not having to worry

about drive by shootings. Not having to worry about my 17 year old being shot for wearing a huddy in my nice gated community by some fool

becoming judge and jury. I like the fact that in the UK your son may get home after a talking to by either a/ the police or b/ whomever is in

charge of security.

I would however guarantee you one thing. He would be alive and not shot to death for looking suspicious.

[Spafranco]

1. He was never told to stay in the car. Nice lie that I hear the traybots repeat often, though.


Zimmerman's voice, meanwhile, comes through on a 911 call he made around that time, telling a dispatcher about "a real suspicious guy."
"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around."
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman, who'd called 911 at least four times previously for other incidents, if he was following the person. He replies, "Yes."
"OK. We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.
But Zimmerman followed him anyway.

Tell me, what is a traybot? A slur on those that grieve the death of a 17 year old. Your juvenile theatrics minimizing a life.

Your contribution is nothing but crass and veiled bigotry along with self serving ideology and plaudits from many on this thread.

You are wrong on every point you posted in response to my answer to someone else. Have you even read anything about the case? By the way, what I posted is an official statement.

[schmenke]

.... Welcome to 4 posts ago, Matlock.

Why the need for personal insults?

[zako85]

So you guys are OK for someone who essentially dished out the death penalty to someone who was at worst, a minor burglar?


Absolutely not ok, but to convict someone of murder or manslaughter, the case has to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. All evidence that was available in favor of Zimmerman's self defense argument cast more than enough of such doubt. What we have is a strong evidence of Zimmerman using a gun in response to a deadly force used against him, which is something Zimmerman's bashers on TV conveniently fail to understand or mention.

[zako85]

I am not a US resident and I do not understand the nuances of US Law. Can somebodey please clarify whether being a member of a neighbourhood watch group is considered legally to being a member of a "A well regulated Militia" in the sense that the writers of the Second Amendment intended?


It has been established by the courts that you don't have to be a member of "well regulated Militia" to own a fire arm, carry it, etc. So, whether or not a member of a neighborhood watch group is considered a well regulated militia is irrelevant to this discussion.

[zako85]

So you are of the same opinion concerning Zimmerman. One very clear issue is the fact that he disobeyed a police dispatcher.

Most people agree that Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. However, disobeying a police dispatcher is not a crime. He broke no law there. He did make a bad judgement call.

[zako85]

It is entertaining to follow the media charade and gossip regarding pressing the federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. My take is that it won't happen as there is no sufficient evidence to prove that a hate crime was committed (in fact some would argue there is no evidence at all). So far Zimmerman was acquitted of any wrong doing. The Federal prosecutors would have to prove that Zimmerman committed a crime AND it was because of race, which sets a much higher standard and burden on the prosecution compared to the state of Florida case.

I heard Holder's speech yesterday. He is a smart guy. I heard nothing NOTHING in his speech suggesting that the Justice Department is going to do anything substantial in response to Saturday's "not guilty" verdict. Of course, this didn't stop the media from reporting headlines like "Holder vows to press federal probe in Zimmerman case", in a desperate attempt continue milking the case for more drama and scandal. However, all Holder mentioned was that the Justice Department is already investigating this case. This investigation was going on probably for over a year. By now it's fair to assume that it led nowhere, but will be kept conveniently open to produce some kind of visibility of work being done to appease the race-mongers and protesters. Once the media moves on and the protesters get tired, the "investigation" will be quietly closed without anyone noticing it.

[anthonyvop]

What has that got to do with the price of bread?

How heavy is Zimmerman?

I am 6feet 1 inch. I have a nephew about the same age as Martin. 6'4'. Could I wrestle him to the ground without having to kill him? Certainly I

could. My mass as is the case with Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin would be sufficient to repel any attempts at him trying to overcome me.


Exactly...age and size is irrelevant

I am 6'1 and large but if somebody of any size jumps on me and starts bashing my head into the ground they better pray I am not carrying.

[anthonyvop]

When was the last time someone or a case of someone being sent to trial for uttering something you perceive as OK here in the US but to be criminal in the UK?

Google + 45 seconds of my time = Glaring examples of no freedom of speech in the UK

Outrageous: Three British men arrested for (http://twitchy.com/2013/05/24/outrageous-three-men-arrested-for-offensive-anti-islam-comments-after-woolwich-murder/)

Free Speech Is Dead In UK As Arrests Made For Social Media Posts After Beheading | Blue Collar Philosophy (http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2013/05/free-speech-is-dead-in-uk-as-arrests-made-for-social-media-posts-after-beheading/)

'Free speech' row after man is ARRESTED for posting image of a burning Poppy on his Facebook page on Remembrance Sunday | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231660/Free-speech-row-man-ARRESTED-posting-image-burning-Poppy-Facebook-page-Remembrance-Sunday.html)

Woolwich attack provokes anti-Muslim backlash across UK - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10080300/Woolwich-attack-provokes-anti-Muslim-backlash-across-UK.html)




I have this sneaking suspicion that you are jealous of the British because of their freedom to walk the streets at night. Not having to worry

about drive by shootings. Not having to worry about my 17 year old being shot for wearing a huddy in my nice gated community by some fool

becoming judge and jury. I like the fact that in the UK your son may get home after a talking to by either a/ the police or b/ whomever is in

charge of security.

I would however guarantee you one thing. He would be alive and not shot to death for looking suspicious.

Crime under Hitler and Stalin was low also.

[anthonyvop]

So for the star witness of the prosecution Zimmerman was a Cracker and a possible Gay, pedophile, rapist......

DRUDGE: JEANTEL WARNED ZIMMERMAN COULD BE GAY RAPIST (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrj.htm)

And some still claim the Zimmerman was the bigot.

[vhatever]

"OK. We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.

I'm glad we can agree, then. He was never told to stay in his car. He was never told to stop following him, either. in fact, there is more evidence in the conversation that the dispatcher was the one who made zimmerman get out of his car in the first place when he repeatedly told zimmerman to watch Martin to see if he did anything else. How can he do that when he has lost sight of him already?

[Spafranco]

I'm glad we can agree, then. He was never told to stay in his car. He was never told to stop following him, either. in fact, there is more evidence in the conversation that the dispatcher was the one who made zimmerman get out of his car in the first place when he repeatedly told zimmerman to watch Martin to see if he did anything else. How can he do that when he has lost sight of him already?

You know. No matter what you are told or what you are led to believe you will pontificate and spew the diatribe that is endemic of the right wing faction that Zimmerman, ignoring the advice of a POLICE DISPATCHER followed Trayvon Martin. An armed 27year old following a unarmed kid. He looked suspicious? To Trayvon Martin it was Zimmerman that looked suspicious. After all, Trayvon was at his fathers home (staying). Along comes a guy armed with a gun because he thinks Tayvon is up to no good. He is killed and his killer is a free man. Tragic and again a miscarriage of justice. This country is going to hell with the manner in which life is treated.
If Trayvon was a blue eyed blond 17 year old kid Zimmerman would be in prison right now.

[vhatever]

If Trayvon was a blue eyed blond 17 year old kid Zimmerman would be in prison right now.

You mean like this guy?
Father Who Killed Is Freed - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576038063871355214.html)

Who murdered a 17 year old unarmed white male who was on public property and no threat to the killer? What did the NAACP have to say about that? Were they clamoring for the justice department to see if the murdered mans rights were vilated? Nope. they wanted the guy of scot free. cause murdering a white boy is A-ok in their books.

[vhatever]

You know. No matter what you are told or what you are led to believe you will pontificate and spew the diatribe that is endemic of the right wing faction that Zimmerman


I'm sure that's what you always say when you get thoroughly owned in a debate.




If Trayvon was a blue eyed blond 17 year old kid Zimmerman would be in prison right now.

You mean like this guy?
Father Who Killed Is Freed - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576038063871355214.html)

Who murdered a 17 year old unarmed white boy who was on public property and no threat to the killer? What did the NAACP have to say about that? Were they clamoring for the justice department to see if the murdered mans rights were violated? Nope. they wanted the killer off scot free. cause murdering a white boy is A-ok in their books.

[anthonyvop]

ignoring the advice of a POLICE DISPATCHER .

One more time.

It wasn't a Police dispatcher. it was a 911 operator. A 911 operator is a low-level, government job with no legal authority what so ever.
think of the most inept government employee you have ever dealt with.....now lower their IQ by 20 points....Bam! You have a 911 operator.

A 911 operator would tell a woman who was about to be raped to lay back and enjoy it. That is what they are told to do. They will never tell a citizen to fight back because the cops hate it when people actually protect themselves and 911 operators are paid through the police department.

Repeat after me; "Stay calm...Help is on the way"

[vhatever]

One more time.

It wasn't a Police dispatcher. it was a 911 operator. A 911 operator is a low-level, government job with no legal authority what so ever.
think of the most inept government employee you have ever dealt with.....now lower their IQ by 20 points....Bam! You have a 911 operator.

A 911 operator would tell a woman who was about to be raped to lay back and enjoy it. That is what they are told to do. They will never tell a citizen to fight back because the cops hate it when people actually protect themselves and 911 operators are paid through the police department.

Repeat after me; "Stay calm...Help is on the way"


I think it's more of a CYA move than anything else.

Also important to note at this juncture that not only was he never told to stay in his car, but that if he had stayed in his car we have zero evidence that trayvon would not have returned to attack "the cracker" there, too. Zimmerman had already said martin was circling his vehicle.

[Roamy]

I think it's more of a CYA move than anything else.

Also important to note at this juncture that not only was he never told to stay in his car, but that if he had stayed in his car we have zero evidence that trayvon would not have returned to attack "the cracker" there, too. Zimmerman had already said martin was circling his vehicle.

zimmerman should have wait until the "Punk" was within 20 ft and then shot him. That way is would have still been innocent but without a broken nose and head injuries.

[Roamy]

I find it absolutely amazing that so many people think you should suffer a beating and do nothing about it. I also find it amazing how many people are spouting off and know very little about the case let alone tha laws. Oh and according to Travon's girlfriend we can now use the word Nigga and Cracka without offending anyone.

[zako85]

How do you determine when someone considers an action a threat.


This is why you have a trial, which is what we have just witnessed. The defense proved that there was more than a boo. There was plenty of physical evidence, witness accounts, and expert opinions corroborating Zimmerman's self-defense account. Everyone was convinced that Zimmerman was being attacked with a life threatening force, the jurors did, and therefore he is justified in using a fire arm in self defense, by the law. End of story.

[zako85]

An armed 27year old following a unarmed kid. He looked suspicious? To Trayvon Martin it was Zimmerman that looked suspicious.


Zimmerman simply looking suspicious could not justify using a life threatening force by Trayvon Martin. On the other hand, it was demonstrated more than well enough that Trayvon Martin applied potentially a deadly force to Zimmerman. Zimmerman was seriously injured and in fear for his life.




Tragic and again a miscarriage of justice. This country is going to hell with the manner in which life is treated.


It's tragic that you refuse to understand that the justice system worked as it was designed, which is by interpreting a set of laws, not your emotions. To convict someone of murder or manslaughter, the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The justice system is designed to err on the side of letting a guilty person to go free rather than send an innocent person to jail. This is not to say that the evidence put forward by defense simply cast a doubt on whether Zimmerman was not being attacked, it did more than that. All jurors, as well as most people following the trial closely were convinced that Zimmerman was fighting in self-defense, potentially for his life.





If Trayvon was a blue eyed blond 17 year old kid Zimmerman would be in prison right now.

Absolutely not. There are tons of lawyers and prosecutors now saying in the interviews that the state of Florida acted recklessly by charging Zimmerman. Their claim is that Martin and Zimmerman were both of the same race, this case would never reach a trial stage to begin with. The whole trial proceeded simply as a response to the the public outcry and the race-mongering media looking for the next scandal. In other words, there is an argument that the whole trial was politically motivated, contrary to your claim above. Not that I personally support this argument. Under the circumstances (dead body, no direct witnesses), an inquiry in form of a trial could be justified.

[zako85]

Someone posted images of what is deemed the injuries received by Zimmerman as he feared for his life. If his head was being 'pounded' into the

pavement he would have presented with contusions causing a severe (marked quantity of blood) loss of blood due to the lacerations he would

inevitably have had. Was there any subdural hematoma reported? Any concussion?


One important point, and this is where most legal analysts agree, you have a right not to wait until you're "almost dead" to start defending yourself. Zimmerman had the right to defend himself before his scull was actually cracked. A threat to life and fear for your life is more than enough to justify self defense, including shooting a firearm. Forensic experts confirmed in court that Zimmerman shot Martin as Martin was leaning over Zimmerman, with Zimmerman's upper torso and head being pounded against cement ground. Is that not life threading enough to you?

[markabilly]

[quote]


Zimmerman's voice, meanwhile, comes through on a 911 call he made around that time, telling a dispatcher about "a real suspicious guy."
"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around."
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman, who'd called 911 at least four times previously for other incidents, if he was following the person. He replies, "Yes."
"OK. We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.
But Zimmerman followed him anyway.

Tell me, what is a traybot? A slur on those that grieve the death of a 17 year old. Your juvenile theatrics minimizing a life.

Your contribution is nothing but crass and veiled bigotry along with self serving ideology and plaudits from many on this thread.

You are wrong on every point you posted in response to my answer to someone else. Have you even read anything about the case? By the way, what I posted is an official statement.

you have distorted the statements:
Zimmerman's voice, meanwhile, comes through on a 911 call he made around that time, telling a dispatcher about "a real suspicious guy."
"This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around."
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman, who'd called 911 at least four times previously for other incidents, if he was following the person. He replies, "Yes."
"OK. We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.[/quote:1rbo5uyl] -----------------I think you are doing what you accuse others of doing. Then after telling him not to follow TM, later when he says he lost track of him, the dispatcher asks him, where did he go?
The dispatcher never said, do not get out of your car.]
This is no different than what NBC did, example: The dispatcher says what race, Hispanic, black or white?

His response is that he looks black
NBC took the “suspicious” statement and added the statement that he looks black, while cutting out the in between portion of the conversation as well as the question asked, so he appears to be saying, he is acting "real suspicious....he looks black" Now they are facing a lawsuit for slander as they should be. :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

In any event, the latest in the circus is certain people are pushing hard to have the justice department file on him for racial profiling and a hate crime....Problem is that earlier the FBI interviewed about 40 witnesses and found no evidence of any racial biases . Problem is that the girl he took to his senior prom was black, the problem is that many people he helped were black. Problem is that he mentored black children. Problem is that he used to play basketball at a local rec center with blacks and other Hispanics. Problem is that he took up for a black man who he thought was being harassed by the local police which lead to some problems for Zimmerman.....

[markabilly]

And Zimmerman's worst sin??? He is not a right wing republican!!! Oh no!!! He is a registered democrat!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: And he may have some of the same ancestry as Martin, being Afro-Peruvian :eek: But let not the facts get in the way of a media circus that seems to be intent on stirring up as much non-sense as possible. :rolleyes: I am sure NBC is disappointed that there has not yet been any full scale, out of hand rioting. Get a rope, we need a lynching like the good ole days when the Klan ruled the nights in certain parts of the old South!! opps, what is the difference between those folks and Klan? well the Klan was white...the current righteous and indignant, well, the majority appear to be not........

[markabilly]

BTW---Does this constitute a hate crime, this "open letter to Zimmerman that clearly threatens him because of racial issues:http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1244310/original.jpg

[markabilly]

or this--is it a hate crime?? Where is the FBI ??? Why are they not investigating this???:
The Zimmermans said that because of "an enormous amount of death threats," they, too, have remained in hiding and still don't feel safe enough to return to their home in Orlando, Fla Zimmerman's Parents in Hiding from 'Enormous Amount of Death Threats': ABC News Exclusive - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19670456&ref=http://www.lucianne.com/main2/?fcnt=744056) Another quote from the same source:
In talking about Zimmerman's character, his parents painted a portrait of a young, outgoing, philanthropic man who looked out for his neighbors, who would buy fast food gift certificates for homeless people, who took care of family members, and as someone who mentored two young black siblings on some weekends.

[Robinho]

isn't that all some of your lovely free speech?

[Daniel]

One more time.

It wasn't a Police dispatcher. it was a 911 operator

That's true, BUT it's common sense advice and what a Police officer would have said to him, there was no need for him to pursue Martin.....

[Daniel]

You know. No matter what you are told or what you are led to believe you will pontificate and spew the diatribe that is endemic of the right wing faction that Zimmerman, ignoring the advice of a POLICE DISPATCHER followed Trayvon Martin. An armed 27year old following a unarmed kid. He looked suspicious? To Trayvon Martin it was Zimmerman that looked suspicious. After all, Trayvon was at his fathers home (staying). Along comes a guy armed with a gun because he thinks Tayvon is up to no good. He is killed and his killer is a free man. Tragic and again a miscarriage of justice. This country is going to hell with the manner in which life is treated.
If Trayvon was a blue eyed blond 17 year old kid Zimmerman would be in prison right now.

Whilst I don't agree with what Zimmerman did, let's not pretend that Martin is blameless in this, Zimmerman was a dimwit and needlessly pursued Martin, but it would seem that Martin is the idiot who picked a fight with someone with a gun.

If Trayvon hadn't lost his rag just because some seemingly wannabe cop was following him, then he wouldn't be kicking up the daisies right now.

This is the problem you get when you have a high concentration of stupidity in such a small area, people die.

[Daniel]

or this--is it a hate crime?? Where is the FBI ??? Why are they not investigating this???: Zimmerman's Parents in Hiding from 'Enormous Amount of Death Threats': ABC News Exclusive - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19670456&ref=http://www.lucianne.com/main2/?fcnt=744056) Another quote from the same source:

Freedum ov speech

[Starter]

That's true, BUT it's common sense advice and what a Police officer would have said to him, there was no need for him to pursue Martin.....
Hardly anyone is disputing that. It was bad judgement for sure. It still does not justify being attacked though.

[Daniel]

Hardly anyone is disputing that. It was bad judgement for sure. It still does not justify being attacked though.

And I think that some people on here are overlooking the fact that no one other than Spafranco seems to hold that opinion, but then again we're all oppressed liberals so we all agree with Spafranco....

[Spafranco]

And I think that some people on here are overlooking the fact that no one other than Spafranco seems to hold that opinion, but then again we're all oppressed liberals so we all agree with Spafranco....
Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

[Daniel]

Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

The phrase most commonly used by those don't have the brainpower to be sarcastic :)

[schmenke]

Well, this thread is likely to be closed soon :s

[Spafranco]

Crime under Hitler and Stalin was low also.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the 6 million Jews or the 20 + million Russians. All of the gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped whether it were physical or mental.

[Spafranco]

The phrase most commonly used by those don't have the brainpower to be sarcastic :)

In your miniscule space occupying too much space and absorbing too much air I would consider any insult from you as a compliment from

someone who does not know or understand any better.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Some of the attitudes towards human life displayed in the thread is truly shocking.

[Starter]

Some of the attitudes towards human life displayed in the thread is truly shocking.
In what way?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In what way?

In what way? Suggesting that a trespasser should be treated like a stray dog in a herd of sheep.

'zimmerman should have wait until the "Punk" was within 20 ft and then shot him. That way is would have still been innocent but without a broken nose and head injuries.'


The overriding impression I'm getting is that you guys across the pond value your constitution over human life. And it seems to me that the US constitution created this situation. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun he probably wouldn't have approached Martin, if he hadn't approached him the said fight and 'self-defence killing' wouldn't have happened. Martin would have been arrested and none of this thread would exist.

[Daniel]

In what way?

Sadly it says a lot about the country you live in when you had to ask that question......

[Starter]

In what way? Suggesting that a trespasser should be treated like a stray dog in a herd of sheep.

'zimmerman should have wait until the "Punk" was within 20 ft and then shot him. That way is would have still been innocent but without a broken nose and head injuries.'


The overriding impression I'm getting is that you guys across the pond value your constitution over human life. And it seems to me that the US constitution created this situation. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun he probably wouldn't have approached Martin, if he hadn't approached him the said fight and 'self-defence killing' wouldn't have happened. Martin would have been arrested and none of this thread would exist.
You have several misunderstandings above.
1) A trespasser (your word) is, by definition, a criminal - though trespassing is a minor crime. Why should such a person be allowed to continue his/her crime?
2) Our Constitution embodies the freedoms we have. And you don't have - that's why we fought against you back in our revolutionary war.
3) The Constitution nowhere values itself over human life. But it is the Constitution which allows us (legally) to protect ourselves.
4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So all trespassers should be shot dead and this is okay because your guys fought for the right to do this against my guys in the 1800s?

Is this nonsense the best you can come up with?

Point 4 you make is possibly true (most of what I really know about this case is what I've read from on this thread), but it doesn't change some of the pathetic views that have come across on this thread.

[Daniel]

So all trespassers should be shot dead and this is okay because your guys fought for the right to do this against my guys in the 1800s?

Is this nonsense the best you can come up with?

Point 4 you make is possibly true (most of what I really know about this case is what I've read from on this thread), but it doesn't change some of the pathetic views that have come across on this thread.

If only point 4 was actually true............

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=2&

[Daniel]

You have several misunderstandings above.
1) A trespasser (your word) is, by definition, a criminal - though trespassing is a minor crime. Why should such a person be allowed to continue his/her crime?
2) Our Constitution embodies the freedoms we have. And you don't have - that's why we fought against you back in our revolutionary war.
3) The Constitution nowhere values itself over human life. But it is the Constitution which allows us (legally) to protect ourselves.
4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.

Dude, stop living in the past :)

1) So the answer to every crime is to kill the perpetrator?
2) The freedom to run around and pursue people needlessly knowing that you can create a confrontation and then shoot him when he smashed your fat head against the pavement?
3) You mean the constitution seems to encourage idiots to go out and cause a confrontation that doesn't need to happen and then kill the other guy.
4) :rotflmao:

You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....

[Rollo]

2) Our Constitution embodies the freedoms we have. And you don't have - that's why we fought against you back in our revolutionary war.

The Constitution enumerates the powers that the Federal Government (all of the three rings of it) does and doesn't have the power to do.


3) The Constitution nowhere values itself over human life. But it is the Constitution which allows us (legally) to protect ourselves.

The Constitution doesn't - you as a people do though; this is proven to the tune of more than 10,000 deaths a year and billions of dollars spent.


4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.

Again, the trial testimony is and can only the record of one witness because the other one is dead. That one witness is by definition a biased sample.

This is now the third time that I've had to labour the point that no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman can actually know the circumstances which happened; of those two, Zimmerman is hardly going to present a case which proves his guilt in this.
And since the prosecution can not build a case which provides proof beyond reasonable doubt, the jury can not delivered anything but a "not guilty" verdict.

[Roamy]

In what way? Suggesting that a trespasser should be treated like a stray dog in a herd of sheep.

'zimmerman should have wait until the "Punk" was within 20 ft and then shot him. That way is would have still been innocent but without a broken nose and head injuries.'


The overriding impression I'm getting is that you guys across the pond value your constitution over human life. And it seems to me that the US constitution created this situation. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun he probably wouldn't have approached Martin, if he hadn't approached him the said fight and 'self-defence killing' wouldn't have happened. Martin would have been arrested and none of this thread would exist.

wrong again - all martin had to do is not attack zimmerman- pretty simple

[Starter]

So all trespassers should be shot dead and this is okay because your guys fought for the right to do this against my guys in the 1800s?

Is this nonsense the best you can come up with?
I neither said nor implied that. And you know it. Your comment is one of the reasons it's hard to have a reasonable conversation these days. It would seem from the evidence that Z acted rashly and foolishly yet did not initiate physical contact. M did. Lacking the physical confrontation neither would be dead. What part of that don't you understand? Also, just exactly where, when someone is beating your brains out, at least from your point of view (the beatee), do you decide to use any means at your disposal to stop it.

Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that Z should have just taken it and, maybe, M would get his just deserts by serving a life sentence for murder? Because no one, especially Z, will ever know if it would have not have gone that far.

More to the point, what would you have done if someone was sitting on you and bashing your head on the ground and you had any sort of weapon at hand?

[vhatever]

Again, the trial testimony is and can only the record of one witness because the other one is dead. That one witness is by definition a biased sample.

This is now the third time that I've had to labour the point that no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman can actually know the circumstances which happened; of those two, Zimmerman is hardly going to present a case which proves his guilt in this.
And since the prosecution can not build a case which provides proof beyond reasonable doubt, the jury can not delivered anything but a "not guilty" verdict.


What a bunch of illogical babble. Even if Martin had survived the shot, his testimony, according to you, would be just as biased as Zimmerman. Then we are left with a mountain of physical evidence that indicates Zimmerman as merely a concerned neighbor and Martin the aggressor, an aggressor who did not cease his assault even when requested by a different witness entirely. It's convenient you forgot about that witness, huh?

[Starter]

Dude, stop living in the past :)
?? How so?


1) So the answer to every crime is to kill the perpetrator?
I never said nor implied that as you well know.

2) The freedom to run around and pursue people needlessly knowing that you can create a confrontation and then shoot him when he smashed your fat head against the pavement?
There is nothing in evidence to support that view with the exception of Z's over zealousness. I don't think anyone has suggested that Z was out to shoot anyone that night.

3) You mean the constitution seems to encourage idiots to go out and cause a confrontation that doesn't need to happen and then kill the other guy.
You're a bright guy and that last line is such an incredibly bad attempt at baiting the discussion it definitely does not become you.

[Rollo]

What a bunch of illogical babble. Even if Martin had survived the shot, his testimony, according to you, would be just as biased as Zimmerman.

Well yes. That should be obvious.

Every witness; in fact every person is a well of internal biases and filling in the gaps of our recollection. I can tell you from my time as a court recorder (I worked in nine different Federal jurisdictions here) that oh so many cases have a component of "he said, she said" about them. Two witnesses can have wildly different stories of the same event. That's part of the reason why courts demand proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases but only "'the balance of probabilities" in civil cases.

And if I've violated the rules of logic, I'd like to know how.

[vhatever]

Well yes. That should be obvious.

Every witness; in fact every person is a well of internal biases and filling in the gaps of our recollection. I can tell you from my time as a court recorder (I worked in nine different Federal jurisdictions here) that oh so many cases have a component of "he said, she said" about them. Two witnesses can have wildly different stories of the same event. That's part of the reason why courts demand proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases but only "'the balance of probabilities" in civil cases.

And if I've violated the rules of logic, I'd like to know how.


I disagree with your premise that one witness's version of events constitutes a biased sample, when that same version of events is not presented in some kind of vacuum. There were tons of other evidence, from witness to physical.it's not one persons story versus no-one else's story.

[Daniel]

?? How so?


I never said nor implied that as you well know.

There is nothing in evidence to support that view with the exception of Z's over zealousness. I don't think anyone has suggested that Z was out to shoot anyone that night.

You're a bright guy and that last line is such an incredibly bad attempt at baiting the discussion it definitely does not become you.

Where did point 4 go? Just saying :dozey:

[Daniel]

wrong again - all martin had to do is not attack zimmerman- pretty simple

That much is obvious, but if Zimmerman hadn't tried to play Dirty Harry then Martin never would have felt threatened and attacked an armed man.....

[zako85]

That much is obvious, but if Zimmerman hadn't tried to play Dirty Harry then Martin never would have felt threatened and attacked an armed man.....

There is no question in my mind that both of them overreacted and both are guilty of bad judgement.

[Daniel]

There is no question in my mind that both of them overreacted and both are guilty of bad judgement.

Exactly. As ridiculous as what I'm about to say sounds, people are focusing on the legalities of the matter far too much, sure Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal (which is true), but did he actually need to pursue someone whose only crime (which wasn't actually a crime) was to look suspicious? This is what set off the chain of events which could have resulted in either of them being killed. If Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into the pavement properly then the same laws would have applied.

As for the trespass, what a load of rubbish, if someone is chasing me then the law isn't going to prosecute me for trespass if I feel like I'm threatened and choose to hide one someone elses property.

[markabilly]

Exactly. As ridiculous as what I'm about to say sounds, people are focusing on the legalities of the matter far too much, sure Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal (which is true), but did he actually need to pursue someone whose only crime (which wasn't actually a crime) was to look suspicious? This is what set off the chain of events which could have resulted in either of them being killed. If Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into the pavement properly then the same laws would have applied.

As for the trespass, what a load of rubbish, if someone is chasing me then the law isn't going to prosecute me for trespass if I feel like I'm threatened and choose to hide one someone elses property.

In moments such as this, no one gets a law book out and has the time to read through it or do anything else but react. Hindsight afterwards is always far clearer vision than foresight in what has become a life or death struggle for Zimmerman requiring instant action. What is illogical is how many think that what Martin was doing was okay, but Zimmerman attempting to talk to Martin was not okay. Zimmerman was attempting to protect people from being robbed, while they were at home. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Martin was being an example of the thug whose attitude is don't mess with me, homie, I will just whup your head.....

[markabilly]

What I find disgusting is the people using this incident to further their own political agendas based on race. What is even more illogical is people, including a certain person in the White House, claiming we should "honor Martin". Honor him for what? Mentoring two black kids or helping people who had been the victims of violent crime in their homes like Zimmerman did? No, sir. Or getting himself killed while doing this to someone's head?http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5034626106721790&pid=1.7&w=306&h=171&c=7&rs=1 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

In moments such as this, no one gets a law book out and has the time to read through it or do anything else but react. Hindsight afterwards is always far clearer vision than foresight in what has become a life or death struggle for Zimmerman requiring instant action. What is illogical is how many think that what Martin was doing was okay, but Zimmerman attempting to talk to Martin was not okay. Zimmerman was attempting to protect people from being robbed, while they were at home. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Martin was being an example of the thug whose attitude is don't mess with me, homie, I will just whup your head.....

For gods sake Markasilly, where did I say that Zimmerman was wrong to shoot Martin when he was attacked? Please quote the post where I say that :)

[Daniel]

For gods sake Markasilly, where did I say that Zimmerman was wrong to shoot Martin when he was attacked? Please quote the post where I say that :)

Then again, if Markasilly actually read my posts then him and his inbred hick colleagues wouldn't be able to characterise me as some sort of oppressed yurropean I suppose

[vhatever]

Exactly. As ridiculous as what I'm about to say sounds, people are focusing on the legalities of the matter far too much, sure Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal (which is true), but did he actually need to pursue someone whose only crime (which wasn't actually a crime) was to look suspicious? This is what set off the chain of events which could have resulted in either of them being killed. If Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into the pavement properly then the same laws would have applied.

As for the trespass, what a load of rubbish, if someone is chasing me then the law isn't going to prosecute me for trespass if I feel like I'm threatened and choose to hide one someone elses property.

He followed someone who clearly dressed and acted suspicious in a neighborhood that had a recent, massive surge in crime. Also there was a gang in that area whose members predominantly dress in dark clothes with hoodies No honest person would fault him for being a concerned citizen. In fact, it's sounding an awful lot like the blaming a girl who got raped for dressing a certain way scenario.

i'll take 20 wannabe cop george zimmemerans living on my block over just one wannabe thug trayvon martin, as would any sane, honest, non-racist person in the USA.

[Starter]

Where did point 4 go? Just saying :dozey:
You mean this one?

4) :rotflmao:

You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....

I guess if you count valuing your own life over that of someone trying to beat your head in as warped, then yes guilty as charged.

[Bagwan]

From the stated facts in this thread , this is how I feel about it :
Zimmerman was well-known by his neighbours to be doing this . They had no issue with it that I have heard , and encouraged him to do so .
He was well-known by the police to be doing this as well , who encouraged it as well .
He was , after the phone call was initiated , apparently asked to keep a close eye on Martin .

To this point he was right in all he did .

It was suggested , as would be the norm , that he leave it to the police from there , however , he acted to keep the suspect in sight , which was the former instruction .

It's hard to know , given that I have no idea what the actual terrain in the specific area was , but the suggestion here seems to be that the act of disappearing from sight was a suspect move in itself .

They found nearby , not right at the scene , burglary tools , which more than suggests that not only was Zimmerman right about this young man being suspicious , but that the young man had ditched the tools and gone back to deal with his pursuer so as not to be caught "red-handed" with them .

At this point we need to remember that Zimmerman had a gun .
He had not drawn it , walking into what had to have been , effectively , an ambush .
Though likely pretty high on the adrenaline of keeping the "perp" in view , with senses on overload , he hadn't walked in ablazing .
He expected him , clearly , to try to flee .

He didn't , and the two began to fight .

Leaving stashed the burglary tools says that Martin either didn't think that Zimmerman had a gun (going back at all unarmed says that , too) , that he wanted to either appear innocent upon their meeting , or not be open to greater charges in the end by using a weapon for the beating .
And , we mustn't forget Martin's state of mind , either , full of adrenaline as well as a wash of teenaged hormones , having just decided to stash his tools , and guilty of being suspicious .

There does not seem to have been any discussion , as the concealed weapon would have appeared before it did .
Thus , a sort of ambush is more likely .

It seems pretty likely that the gun , itself , emboldened Zimmerman to leave his car , but as it only appeared after the two were on the ground , it doesn't suggest he was trying to apprehend anyone , but rather that he was trying , as instructed , to keep him in sight .

It doesn't really make sense that when you are beating on someone , you stop to shoot them as well .

But it does make sense that you'd shoot someone if they were beating on you .

[Daniel]

You mean this one?

4) :rotflmao:

You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....

I guess if you count valuing your own life over that of someone trying to beat your head in as warped, then yes guilty as charged.

No, the bit where you said this


4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.

[SGWilko]

Then again, if Markasilly actually read my posts then him and his inbred hick colleagues wouldn't be able to characterise me as some sort of oppressed yurropean I suppose

I have to say, I think you may have reached rock bottom with that post. It is poor even by your standards Daniel.

[Daniel]

I have to say, I think you may have reached rock bottom with that post. It is poor even by your standards Daniel.

I'm just generalising like some of them do based on highly inaccurate stereotypes.

[SGWilko]

I'm just generalising like some of them do based on highly inaccurate stereotypes.

Bringing yourself to their level eh? Not very smart IMO.

[Daniel]

Bringing yourself to their level eh? Not very smart IMO.

Not really, just appearing to do so, do I actually believe that any of the people on here are inbred? Nope. Sadly they seem to think we're oppressed though :crazy:

[SGWilko]

Not really, just appearing to do so, do I actually believe that any of the people on here are inbred? Nope. Sadly they seem to think we're oppressed though :crazy:

I'm married, which is the same as oppression isn't it?

[Daniel]

I'm married, which is the same as oppression isn't it?

No, not at all (My wife used to post on this forum so I couldn't really say anything else could I?)

[Spafranco]

The phrase most commonly used by those don't have the brainpower to be sarcastic :)

Really?! You have researched the response or seen it in print or heard it in person to actually make a statement such as the one above and think/believe that your retort has credibility.
Instead of having a hissy fit why not point out what it is that I am so incorrect about (as a liberal) that you find so offensive.

You believe I don't have the brainpower to be sarcastic, well that may be the case Einstein but I do value the fact that ignorance is bliss and I would prefer to be ignorant than having to resort to the challenging task that you have deemed a model for intelligence when in fact it is nothing but a scathing thoughtless and meant to harm commentary which only makes YOU look like a clown.
Wit, to which I referred is where I would prefer to place my intelligence. Wouldn't that be where you should aspire to be capable of initiating?

[Starter]

No, not at all (My wife used to post on this forum so I couldn't really say anything else could I?)
You could if you can run fast enough. Stopping at both the florist and chocolate store on the way home of course. :D

[SGWilko]

You could if you can run fast enough. Stopping at both the florist and chocolate store on the way home of course. :D

Don't forget the headache pills to fend off the inevitable 'excuse'.......

[Daniel]

You could if you can run fast enough. Stopping at both the florist and chocolate store on the way home of course. :D

Humour, the lowest form of wit :p That's directed at both of you :p

[Daniel]

Really?! You have researched the response or seen it in print or heard it in person to actually make a statement such as the one above and think/believe that your retort has credibility.
Instead of having a hissy fit why not point out what it is that I am so incorrect about (as a liberal) that you find so offensive.

You believe I don't have the brainpower to be sarcastic, well that may be the case Einstein but I do value the fact that ignorance is bliss and I would prefer to be ignorant than having to resort to the challenging task that you have deemed a model for intelligence when in fact it is nothing but a scathing thoughtless and meant to harm commentary which only makes YOU look like a clown.
Wit, to which I referred is where I would prefer to place my intelligence. Wouldn't that be where you should aspire to be capable of initiating?

Just because you complain with more words than others doesn't make you intelligent, just verbose.

[Spafranco]

Just because you complain with more words than others doesn't make you intelligent, just verbose.

Just because you retort with inane assumptions in one liners does not make you an authority on anything whether I'm verbose or intelligent. It

only shows that your personal opinion of others is measured only by what you perceive in a post on an internet thread.

[Daniel]

Just because you retort with inane assumptions in one liners does not make you an authority on anything whether I'm verbose or intelligent. It

only shows that your personal opinion of others is measured only by what you perceive in a post on an internet thread.

How else am I meant to build a perception of someone who I only know from a forum? just saying :)

[schmenke]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3790/9316729610_1f348c9956.jpg

[Roamy]

I think the following pretty well sums it up very correctly


I think the reactions of the George Zimmerman verdict have shown us once again what is leading to the decline of this country and why it is more important than ever to be self-reliant and to prepare for uncertain times. The fact is, we have a man who was getting his head bashed in by another man and he defended himself as any person would. We do not have a man that hunted down an unarmed person, because if that was the case I think we would agree George Zimmerman should have gone to jail for murder. However, we have the TV pundits, Hollywood celebrities, and protestors talking about how you can go around hunting down unarmed children and murdering them. They forget to mention that this unarmed child, violently attacked a man, broke his nose, and was slamming his head on the ground. My point is… We have many people in this nation who fail to even look at the facts so they can make an intelligent comment on the case, but more importantly, we have a nation of people who don’t believe a person should be responsible for their actions. I find it troubling that the President of our country – who ought to try and be an example – would tell the nation to “honor” Trayvon Martin. In other words, he is telling the nation to honor a man who tried to kill another man. He’s not saying that we need to take responsibility for our actions and that the reason the man died is because he chose to jump someone, and to repeatedly punch them and bash their head on the ground. I’m pretty sure if I went up to Alec Baldwin (a knucklehead celebrity who made a silly comment about the case) and I started bashing his head on the ground he wouldn’t just sit there and smile, he’d defend himself like a normal person would. But again, my big problem is the lack of personal responsibility in this country. It’s the notion that we can do whatever we want without consequences, and that someone or something (such as the government) will bail us out or take care of us. In fact, the only reactions I don’t blame are Trayvon’s parents. I think we can agree that if your child died, no matter what caused it, you would want the person that killed them to be prosecuted… I’m sure I certainly would. But everyone else, not so emotionally close to the case should be teaching their children personal responsibility. And that you don’t go around starting fights and punching people and if you do, there are consequences to be paid. I guess what I’m really trying to say is, instead of all of the hate being spouted from both sides and instead of Geraldo Riveria and Al Sharpton stirring things up just to get their time in front of the camera, we should be teaching our kids and our nation to be responsible for their actions.

[D-Type]

Folks,

This is degenerating into swapping personal insults. Can we please return to discussing the [admittedly sensitive] subject in a civilised manner - for example, it's OK to say "My opinion is .... because ..." or "I disagree with ... because ..." but it is not OK to say "I disagree with ... so you are a ... "

[/moderator]

[Spafranco]

How else am I meant to build a perception of someone who I only know from a forum? just saying :)

Simple. Don't, as it tends to make you look shallow with no self esteem. You're sitting at a computer making character assessments and you don't know what you're doing. Sounds idiotic to me.Just sayin :)

I digress since I was dragged into this and will do as D-TYpe has suggested.

I am finished trading posts on this with you Daniel. Go ahead and have a swipe at me again. It will be read of course but I will not respond.

[anthonyvop]

Tell that to the 6 million Jews or the 20 + million Russians. All of the gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped whether it were physical or mental.[/QUOTE]

You don't get it do ya.

I was pointing out that low crime rates tend to go hand in hand with repressive Governments.

[anthonyvop]

Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

At least it is better of cowardice.

Speaking of which remember this?


Originally Posted by Spafranco View Post


When was the last time someone or a case of someone being sent to trial for uttering something you perceive as OK here in the US but to be criminal in the UK?
Google + 45 seconds of my time = Glaring examples of no freedom of speech in the UK


Well I did and yet you seem to have drifted over to the other side of the podium you like to pontificate from and go another direction.

[anthonyvop]

There is no question in my mind that both of them overreacted and both are guilty of bad judgement.


The difference being that Martin committed 2 possibly 3, criminal acts(trespassing and assault & Possibly attempted murder) while Zimmerman committed none.

[anthonyvop]

You mean this one?

4) :rotflmao:

You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....

I guess if you count valuing your own life over that of someone trying to beat your head in as warped, then yes guilty as charged.

You have to understand. We are not ashamed to say we value our lives. Some people like Daniel are ashamed until they face their own mortality. Then they screech and whine like is expected from them.

[Spafranco]

At least it is better of cowardice.

Speaking of which remember this?







Well I did and yet you seem to have drifted over to the other side of the podium you like to pontificate from and go another direction.

Are you actually stating that I'm a coward, Anthonyvop? How idiotic.

At any rate, where is OUR great freedom of speech and assembly.

By Ruben Vives, Robert J. Lopez and Andrew Blankstein July 16, 2013, 6:34 a.m.

Los Angeles police arrested 14 people overnight for failing to disperse after hundreds of protesters splintered off a peaceful demonstration.

[Spafranco]

The difference being that Martin committed 2 possibly 3, criminal acts(trespassing and assault & Possibly attempted murder) while Zimmerman committed none.

When did Trayvon Martin commit these "crimes" as you state?

Was it before or after Zimmerman left the vehicle? Was it before and that was why he was followed by Trayvon?

[vhatever]

When did Trayvon Martin commit these "crimes" as you state?

Was it before or after Zimmerman left the vehicle? Was it before and that was why he was followed by Trayvon?

Before Zimmerman left the vehicle, trayvon was guilty of these crimes:
jaywalking
trespassing
using a hood to obscure his face -- yes, it's illegal in Florida to do that
illegal drug possession -- yes, he had drugs in his system, which is criminal in Florida and many other states.

Obviously jaywalking is pretty negligible, but the other three all contributed significantly to the impression of a suspicious character. Zimmerman specifically said he appeared to be on drugs.

[markabilly]

I think the following pretty well sums it up very correctly


I think the reactions of the George Zimmerman verdict have shown us once again what is leading to the decline of this country and why it is more important than ever to be self-reliant and to prepare for uncertain times. .....My point is… We have many people in this nation who fail to even look at the facts so they can make an intelligent comment on the case, but more importantly, we have a nation of people who don’t believe a person should be responsible for their actions. I find it troubling that the President of our country – who ought to try and be an example – would tell the nation to “honor” Trayvon Martin. ........ He’s not saying that we need to take responsibility for our actions ..... But again, my big problem is the lack of personal responsibility in this country. It’s the notion that we can do whatever we want without consequences, and that someone or something (such as the government) will bail us out or take care of us. In fact, the only reactions I don’t blame are Trayvon’s parents. I think we can agree that if your child died, no matter what caused it, you would want the person that killed them to be prosecuted… I’m sure I certainly would. But everyone else, not so emotionally close to the case should be teaching their children personal responsibility. And that you don’t go around starting fights and punching people and if you do, there are consequences to be paid. I guess what I’m really trying to say is, instead of all of the hate being spouted from both sides and instead of Geraldo Riveria and Al Sharpton stirring things up just to get their time in front of the camera, we should be teaching our kids and our nation to be responsible for their actions.Next thing you will be muttering in your paranoia is that large cities like Detroit will be going bankrupt and "will not be around to bail us out"....We all know that is not going to happen with any large city........ :dozey:

[Daniel]

Before Zimmerman left the vehicle, trayvon was guilty of these crimes:
jaywalking
trespassing
using a hood to obscure his face -- yes, it's illegal in Florida to do that
illegal drug possession -- yes, he had drugs in his system, which is criminal in Florida and many other states.

Obviously jaywalking is pretty negligible, but the other three all contributed significantly to the impression of a suspicious character. Zimmerman specifically said he appeared to be on drugs.

Ummm no.

Jaywalking, whatever.
Drugs? He wasn't in possession of drugs, he had a tiny amount of drugs in his system, if he'd been arrested that night he wouldn't have been prosecuted or even given a warning for it. The amount of drugs in his system were small and wouldn't have resulted in a difference in behaviour, but lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Trespassing? He was being pursued by someone he didn't know, should he stay out of people's gardens just to stay legal whilst running from someone who later turned out to have a gun......

[vhatever]

Ummm no.

Jaywalking, whatever.
Drugs? He wasn't in possession of drugs, he had a tiny amount of drugs in his system, if he'd been arrested that night he wouldn't have been prosecuted or even given a warning for it. The amount of drugs in his system were small and wouldn't have resulted in a difference in behaviour, but lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Trespassing? He was being pursued by someone he didn't know, should he stay out of people's gardens just to stay legal whilst running from someone who later turned out to have a gun......


i think you have already demonstrated your profound ignorance of USA laws. There is no need to convince us further. We get it, you have no clue.

The medical examiner took blood from the chest cavity instead of the extremities, a major no-no for determining drug levels. His actual levels of THC could have been many times higher.The actual amount is irrelevant to whether it is legal or not. It's illegal to have THC metabolites in your system in Florida. No debate. That's the law. The end.

You are also totally off base regarding the trespassing. the trespassing occurred before Zimmerman followed Trayvon, when he was cutting through a segment of the town homes. That's when Zimmerman first laid eyes on him, and one of the many reasons he appeared suspicious.

[vhatever]

Ummm no.

Jaywalking, whatever.
Drugs? He wasn't in possession of drugs, he had a tiny amount of drugs in his system, if he'd been arrested that night he wouldn't have been prosecuted or even given a warning for it. The amount of drugs in his system were small and wouldn't have resulted in a difference in behaviour, but lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Trespassing? He was being pursued by someone he didn't know, should he stay out of people's gardens just to stay legal whilst running from someone who later turned out to have a gun......


i think you have already demonstrated your profound ignorance of USA laws. There is no need to convince us further. We get it, you have no clue.

The medical examiner took blood from the chest cavity instead of the extremities, a major no-no for determining drug levels. His actual levels of THC could have been many times higher.The actual amount is irrelevant to whether it is legal or not. It's illegal to have THC metabolites in your system in Florida. No debate. That's the law. The end.

You are also totally off base regarding the trespassing. the trespassing occurred before Zimmerman followed Trayvon, when he was cutting through a segment of the town homes. That's when Zimmerman first laid eyes on him, and one of the many reasons he appeared suspicious.

[SGWilko]

i think you have already demonstrated your profound ignorance of USA laws. There is no need to convince us further. We get it, you have no clue.

The medical examiner took blood from the chest cavity instead of the extremities, a major no-no for determining drug levels. His actual levels of THC could have been many times higher.The actual amount is irrelevant to whether it is legal or not. It's illegal to have THC metabolites in your system in Florida. No debate. That's the law. The end.

You are also totally off base regarding the trespassing. the trespassing occurred before Zimmerman followed Trayvon, when he was cutting through a segment of the town homes. That's when Zimmerman first laid eyes on him, and one of the many reasons he appeared suspicious.

Why was Ferris Bueller not arrested on his final return home from his 'day off' then? ;)

[vhatever]

Why was Ferris Bueller not arrested on his final return home from his 'day off' then? ;)


You didn't know Mathew Brodderick was Jewish???


heh. Joking aside, generally you can't get blood samples from someone else they are being charged with some other crime. assuming trayvon had survived the gunshot he definitely would have had his blood tested for the presence of drugs.

[airshifter]

The only sensible decision in the non case against Zimmerman is the one made IMO. The entire event is a sad reflection of racial bias in this country.

And, as predicted by Roamy in the now locked thread, a few have resorted to some minor looting and other such stupidity, such as blocking roads and throwing bottles at cops and other pedestrians. Thankfully most are simply doing what is legal and taking part in a peaceful protest of some sort.



As for this thread, it's apparent to me that only some will deal with facts and a great many are not dealing with facts and/or the law but with their emotions. It's sad that any person is killed, but people have a right in this country to protect their property and by all accounts it appears to me that Zimmerman had no intention other than such protection of property and his neighborhood.

Having been involved in trying to better a neighborhood we found that people with nothing to hide usually don't hide anything, and often become helpful in protecting the area. We also became very familiar with the laws concerning such things with the help of the local cops, who were very much behind what we were doing. Sadly the end result is often that the trouble makers will simply end up in another neighborhood where people don't get involved.




I do have a question for those that only seem to oppose the incident due to the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. If all evidence and testimony had been the same, but there was no gun involved, would it change your opinion on the right to self defense? As an example, assume that somehow during the fight Zimmerman delivered a lethal blow with his fist.... would it change the way people think about the case?

[Starter]

I do have a question for those that only seem to oppose the incident due to the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. If all evidence and testimony had been the same, but there was no gun involved, would it change your opinion on the right to self defense? As an example, assume that somehow during the fight Zimmerman delivered a lethal blow with his fist.... would it change the way people think about the case?
Interesting question.

[anthonyvop]

Are you actually stating that I'm a coward, Anthonyvop? How idiotic.

At any rate, where is OUR great freedom of speech and assembly.

By Ruben Vives, Robert J. Lopez and Andrew Blankstein July 16, 2013, 6:34 a.m.

Los Angeles police arrested 14 people overnight for failing to disperse after hundreds of protesters splintered off a peaceful demonstration.

You asked for examples of how there is no Freedom of speech in the UK. I provided more than one recent example. Now just accept it.

And stick to the subject. Do not try to compare police breaking up a violent protest that was blocking the public roads with a lack of Freedom of speech. There is a big difference.

[anthonyvop]

Ummm no.


Trespassing? He was being pursued by someone he didn't know, should he stay out of people's gardens just to stay legal whilst running from someone who later turned out to have a gun......

Martin was originally observed by Zimmerman not only trespassing but peering into windows of a home.


Why was Ferris Bueller not arrested on his final return home from his 'day off' then? ;)

He should have been. Ferris Bueller was a entertaining movie. A work a fiction to get a chuckle.

[ioan]

I was pointing out that low crime rates tend to go hand in hand with repressive Governments.

:rotflmao:
I just found out that in Europe we are being repressed so much more than in the USA! :rotflmao:

[ioan]

Facts: Hispanic shoots black guy in a fight.

A Hispanic named George Zimmerman, I would have never thought it possible.

[Daniel]

I do have a question for those that only seem to oppose the incident due to the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. If all evidence and testimony had been the same, but there was no gun involved, would it change your opinion on the right to self defense? As an example, assume that somehow during the fight Zimmerman delivered a lethal blow with his fist.... would it change the way people think about the case?

I have no issue with what Zimmerman did after he started getting punched, I just take issue with the fact that he created the situation.

[Starter]

I have no issue with what Zimmerman did after he started getting punched, I just take issue with the fact that he created the situation.
It is unclear from the testimony who actually started it.

[vhatever]

Race baiter in chief at it again. I cannot believe how far we have fallen as a nation that elected this clown and then re-elected his useless, racist ass.

[Bagwan]

It is unclear from the testimony who actually started it.

There is a little clarity , isn't there ?

One ditched burglary tools , and turned around to confront the other .

And , the other had a gun , but was assaulted before he could use it .
Kinda sounds a trifle ambushy to me .

By the way , do we know what the burglary tools were that were stashed under the bushes ?

[vhatever]

I have no issue with what Zimmerman did after he started getting punched, I just take issue with the fact that he created the situation.

She deserved to be raped for dressing like that.

[Starter]

There is a little clarity , isn't there ?

One ditched burglary tools , and turned around to confront the other .
The ditched burglary tools were not in evidence at the trial, so any discussion about them is suspect as all perspectives have not been investigated. Has anyone had them fingerprinted? If so, whose was the result?


And , the other had a gun , but was assaulted before he could use it .
Kinda sounds a trifle ambushy to me .
The, admittedly, one sided testimony indicated that Martin started the actual physical part of the encounter.


By the way , do we know what the burglary tools were that were stashed under the bushes ?
Not at this time.

[Spafranco]

Race baiter in chief at it again. I cannot believe how far we have fallen as a nation that elected this clown and then re-elected his useless, racist ass.

The President is a "clown" and a "race baiter". What is a "race baiter". Is that a fishing term? How far has this nation fallen? Exactly?!

All you do is whine about President Obama and cheer for the verdict handed down in the Martin Zimmerman trial. Makes me wonder what part race plays in your constricted world.

[Spafranco]

She deserved to be raped for dressing like that.

so you agree that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car assuming that statement of yours is tongue-in-cheek.

[Spafranco]

Tell that to the 6 million Jews or the 20 + million Russians. All of the gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped whether it were physical or mental.


You don't get it do ya.

I was pointing out that low crime rates tend to go hand in hand with repressive Governments.[/QUOTE]

What don't you get? You believe that the Nuremberg Trials were a fiasco and that there was no crime under Hitler? You said it. I don't get it.

What I don't get is the fact that you use the murder of millions and state that crime was low. Lord help us if that is your opinion. Try to wriggle

out of your idiotic statement Anthonyvop.

[anthonyvop]

:rotflmao:
I just found out that in Europe we are being repressed so much more than in the USA! :rotflmao:


Most European countries do not have the basic freedom of speech so yes....You are being repressed.

[anthonyvop]

What don't you get? You believe that the Nuremberg Trials were a fiasco and that there was no crime under Hitler? You said it. I don't get it.

What I don't get is the fact that you use the murder of millions and state that crime was low. Lord help us if that is your opinion. Try to wriggle

out of your idiotic statement Anthonyvop.

You don't get it.

Crime was a big issue in Germany before the Nazis took over. They made it a major part of their election platform. Once they took over the came down hard on what they considered criminal and it quickly dropped.

The Soviets were also adept at keeping crime under control.

You have no grasp of irony. You were talking about how we accept crime in the US as a price of what we consider a freedom and right and I was just showing you that if you believe that the low crime is worth giving up your rights then you would have loved the Nazis and the Soviets.

[airshifter]

I have no issue with what Zimmerman did after he started getting punched, I just take issue with the fact that he created the situation.

So you take issue with the fact that he was out keeping an eye on the neighborhood in an effort to reduce crime? If protecting property is something you take issue with, remember that when someone robs your home or vandalizes your ​car.

[Spafranco]

:rotflmao:
I just found out that in Europe we are being repressed so much more than in the USA! :rotflmao:
You are Ioan, but to think I was in Watford not so long ago and lo and behold I actually managed to get to London city center without being accosted. I used the old trick of looking into windows to catch the reflection of someone following me because I had a baseball cap on and looked like an American, you know like that guy that was recently killed. Gee, I didn't even have a gun. Come to think of it, when I got to my hotel, I asked where I could buy one and the guy said, "would you like a Purdy or maybe a Midland, sir. 12 gauge, what?". "No a Glock 9mm ". "No sir, we don't need those damn things here. We might get a bloody bang on the head every now and then or a bloody nose but that is rare. In fact I heard of a recent case in your country where a 17 year old kid was shot by a guy who said he looked suspicious. Killed him right there. Kid was only 17. Guy that shot him got off too. Seems he got off with hitting a copper a couple of years ago. I say, isn't it a terrible state of affairs when a 17 year old accused of looking suspicious because he was wearing a hooded sweater is chased down by a man almost twice his weight and at least 10 years older and then gets killed because he stood up for himself. I wonder what the young chap thought. Maybe he thought this guy that has the same name as Bob Dylan, what is it, oh yes, Zimmerman looked really suspicious. Wasn't he told to stay in his car by a police dispatcher and ignored the advice"? Zimmerman I mean. Awful. You know I hate to say it but there are many people here in Europe and other countries that have changed their vacations to the States. Looking at the number of guns you have and the murder rate it seems safer to go to a Third world country where you are safer. You know, the US is the most violent country in the industrialized world?
I couldn't argue a point as he was correct. 60 million people in Britain and probably the murder rate is not much more than a hundred or so per year.

[Spafranco]

So you take issue with the fact that he was out keeping an eye on the neighborhood in an effort to reduce crime? If protecting property is something you take issue with, remember that when someone robs your home or vandalizes your ​car.

Shoot them is your answer?