Martin/Zimmerman - What the jury heard . [Archive]

Starter

25th July 2013, 14:52

OK, I'll start.

The jury reached the only possible conclusion they could have given the existing law and the testimony and evidence presented at the trial.

Some in the former thread argued that the finding was wrong. They are the ones in error and I'll tell you why. The Florida Stand Your Ground laws are quite clear. And, unfortunately for some, the laws mean what they say and not what you would like them to mean. The answer for those who believe that justice was not done is not to carp about the jury finding, but to work to get the laws changed so that they say and mean something closer to your viewpoint. (Others will work to retain said laws of course.) That's how rule of law works. Laws are not flexible things, meaning different things at different times and to different people. They mean what they say. That's a lesson for legislators everywhere - be very careful what you enact, as you're going to have to live with it.

airshifter

25th July 2013, 16:56

Thanks for allowing the topic to continue Pino, and thanks for posing the question Bagwan. :)

To me this was an open and shut case that would have likely never happened without political influence at higher levels. It was well within Zimmermans rights to patrol his neighborhood and attempt to protect property. I've been amazed that so many oppose his actions and saw him as aggressive in any way.

We had some issues in our community years ago and people got involved in the same way. I found that if people had nothing to hide, they hid nothing. People that noticed we were keeping an eye on things (young and older) often approached us to ask what we were looking for, or why. When they realized what we were doing they often assisted in pointing out the "trouble makers" within the community. Even the kids that were up to some small scale illegal activity wanted to clear their names of any major wrong doing and as such avoided circumstances that would point to them as a source of major problems.

Even some of the kids that were major fools got the point, and after talking to them they started understanding how their actions would reflect on their parents and their neighborhood. And we also communicated with the kids, and found out why some of them were doing seemingly shady things at all hours of the night. In some cases, we found other outlets so kids could be kids without drawing the eyes of the adults.

I personally feel that Zimmerman has had his character assaulted from just about every angle possible. A "wanna be" cop... stated over and over. So is there a problem with someone having a desire to uphold the law? Or for that matter education themselves to the law?

Zimmerman a racist? By what standards this came to light I don't really understand at all. There was a great deal of evidence that he was far removed from being a racist, and I've yet to see any evidence that he was inclined towards being a racist in any way, shape or form.

And now Zimmerman will have to live with threats against him and his family for many years to come. He will also have to live with the fact that he took another humans life, even if justified by law. And many studies have concluded that doing such a thing has mental impacts that are lasting, more influenced by the reaction of society than the actual act of killing a person. IMO a great part of society has failed Zimmerman.

Bagwan

25th July 2013, 17:34

Let's start , Starter , with the idea that none of us , including the jury , had heard much of the background of either men , and drew our own conclusions .

For some , "stand your ground" can result in terrible tragedy , which , in this case was what was being portrayed by most of the press .
This , at least to some degree , is the result of the hyper-sensitivity that the US society has towards the issue of racism .

On the bare face of it , with a young man dead , and silenced about the affair , we all had little idea about the reasons behind what happened , and most made the step into one camp or the other .

Now knowing more of Trayvon , perhaps this can show the extent that we can be manipulated in the press .
This , of course , is not the mainstream press by any means , but seeing the video with some more background for each man puts new light on both the situation that occurred , and so , should not necessarily prompt derision towards those who believed it .
They were uninformed .
They were uninformed on purpose , or , at least it looks like it .

It opens up a lot of avenues for questions .
Was Obama informed before he made his stand ?
If not , Is it incompetence , or was someone looking to make him look foolish ?
If he knew , what was the point ?

Will the truth shown in the video ever make it to that mainstream ?

airshifter

25th July 2013, 18:33

They were uninformed .
They were uninformed on purpose , or , at least it looks like it .

It opens up a lot of avenues for questions .
Was Obama informed before he made his stand ?
If not , Is it incompetence , or was someone looking to make him look foolish ?
If he knew , what was the point ?

Will the truth shown in the video ever make it to that mainstream ?

I personally think that in many cases they were misinformed on purpose. Without misinformation applied, or at a bare minimum selective truths, there was no real controversy to report. And lacking such controversy the "case" would never have happened IMO.

But on the flip side, I think much of society would draw conclusions quickly even if only the full facts were reported by the media. Many people see things in black and white and never look at gray area or put themselves in the situation yet remain mindful of facts presented. Like the song says, many people love "dirty laundry".

Others will accept facts as facts, but in this example possibly question the law. That is human nature, and opinions will always vary. Others will twist whatever facts they do come across to fit their already determined point of view. To me thing is pointless, and one of the reasons such people often don't even attempt to find what is known as fact. The previous thread had a great number of statements presented as fact that I've yet to find evidence were facts. But once again nature to some.... doing anything they can to justify their point of view.

As for Obama, I really can't for the life of me understand why he got involved. It was a no win situation for him, and will continue to be so.

As for the truths in the video, I saw the video before it was posted and checked out some of the statements made as I had no previously been aware of them. And I've yet to find anything that doesn't by all account appear to be true. I had previously (in the locked thread) stated that I thought the real civil rights leaders would be disgusted with how people twist the race issue these days. But in the long run I don't think any mainstream media would dare run something as fact based as this video. It contains far to many truths for the modern media to be interested.

Bagwan

26th July 2013, 13:17

"It contains far to many truths for the modern media to be interested."

But , doesn't it contain a wild number of questions , ripe to address ?
Perhaps the most obvious would be who stands to benefit from a race war .

But , there are many more from which to chose .

Was the media complicit , or were they duped as well ?
Since this video states that it was an easy task to acquire much more information about the two men involved , was it not obvious that this information would emerge eventually , if it was suppressed ?

When stuff like this happens , it makes me wonder why .
And , I'm not talking about either Martin or Zimmerman here .

Governments tend to work in rather Markabillian ways these days , and when the magician waves his hand , it's wise to look for where the other hand is .

It might be that they needed a distraction from another issue .

If a race war was the object , you'd think they'd be more careful with their choice of heroes to champion .
All this new stuff coming out , seemingly easily , puts me wondering if it all was a set-up , to discredit Obama , with potential to pi$$ off both the whites and the hispanics , by incorrectly identifying Zimmerman a racist , and the blacks , by using this punk to identify an example of a fine young black man .

It'll be interesting to see this all come to light , as it looks like it's just being let to stew in the background .

zako85

26th July 2013, 14:13

airshifter

26th July 2013, 16:59

Bagwan,

All good questions, and I wish I had the true answers.

To be honest the more I sweep through media coverage in different regions of the world, the more I suspect that the media in general has a greater influence on the opinions of the population than I really ever suspected. I've found that the "spin" is often as regional as it is biased based on source. I've found information that may be swayed far left in one part of the world, far right in another, and fact checking tells me it's somewhere in the middle. But it's often difficult to find a media source anywhere in the world that deals with those facts without a slant one way or another.

I actually think a strongly fact based media source with higher standards and more accountability would be popular all over the world. It would take some getting used to depending on what spin a persons regular sources were slanted towards, but in time I think everyone would appreciate it. In most cases when I fact search/check I find stories that most media portray as black and white are in fact grey.

Zako85,

I really don't get it either. Even without specific laws in this case there is no evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense. I personally think that some are taking the "stand your ground" laws out of context and are assuming that it implies you can start a confrontation and remain innocent regardless of outcome.

I'm 100% behind stand your ground and castle laws, including those that extend to vehicles. I think that the majority of people in the world would flee given the choice rather than take another persons life, but I don't think they should be expected to do so. To change the laws to force or expect people to flee is almost an invitation to greater crime IMO.

Bagwan

26th July 2013, 17:14

Bagwan

26th July 2013, 17:43

"Stand your ground" justifies gun sales . Gun guys win .
More gun crimes create more paranoia , and the public buys more guns .
Inject a little race tension , and guns sell again . The gun guys win again .

And , of course , the street cop needs to be armed to be able to meet the challenge of outgunning the common criminal , the innocent kid turned bad . The gun guys again .
Maybe the neighbourhood watch is past it's prime and there should be talk of uniformed police officers instead .
Those guys that supply the cops with all those weapons also supply the army with all theirs as well , so why not just supply the cops with the same weapons and gear ?
Hell , why not just use the army ?

Now , to be clear , I'm not suggesting this route , but merely trying to show it's not that many steps .

It perhaps shows that , what I understand as the original reasoning behind the second amendment in your constitution , the proliferation of arms is , in part , a protection against a government that is seen as moving against it's own people , as much of protection of the individual .

I hope I'm right about that , but one thing that I am pretty sure I am right about , is that the second amendment guarantees that the gun guys win every time .

Starter

26th July 2013, 18:06

Maybe the neighbourhood watch is past it's prime and there should be talk of uniformed police officers instead .
The tax to support that would be unacceptable.

Bagwan

26th July 2013, 18:39

The tax to support that would be unacceptable.

Well , yeah , I know that .
It was just an illustration of steps towards a police state .

I was listening to CBC radio the other day(most CBC stuff in on NPR) , and they were talking about a recent long weekend where there were , I think , thirty-seven killings over a long weekend in Chicago .

Presumably , this Martin/Zimmerman thing was more sexy on the surface for the press to grab on , than the choice of one of the Chicago 37 .

Bagwan

26th July 2013, 18:45

The tax to support that would be unacceptable.

Hold on a moment , Starter , but , that was the only aspect on which you chose to comment ?
I hope that doesn't mean you would accept the statement , "Hell , why not just use the army ?" , as less than it was -ie , an extreme degree .

Starter

26th July 2013, 19:02

Hold on a moment , Starter , but , that was the only aspect on which you chose to comment ?
I hope that doesn't mean you would accept the statement , "Hell , why not just use the army ?" , as less than it was -ie , an extreme degree .
I didn't say it because the tax for that would also be unacceptable. :D

Starter

26th July 2013, 19:12

Well , yeah , I know that .
It was just an illustration of steps towards a police state .

I was listening to CBC radio the other day(most CBC stuff in on NPR) , and they were talking about a recent long weekend where there were , I think , thirty-seven killings over a long weekend in Chicago .

Presumably , this Martin/Zimmerman thing was more sexy on the surface for the press to grab on , than the choice of one of the Chicago 37 .
I thought I was pretty clear back in post #247 of the closed thread:

That's the part which I find most interesting. It's a true statement and has been true for many years. The same can not be said of the Asian, Hispanic, white or even indian populations. Why is that? And when are many of the so called black leaders going to wake up to the fact instead of blaming their woes on whites? It was said best in an old Pogo cartoon - "We have met the enemy and he is us.".
I find it very difficult to have a lot of sympathy for the rantings of some of the black leaders (at least the ones who love the camera) who blame everything on the whites. If they spent half as much time tending to the issues in the black community, there would be a lot more black kids still alive now.

Rollo

29th July 2013, 00:16

I don't understand why "stand your ground" is being brought up again and again in the news. Zimmerman should have been acquitted simply due to a simple self-defense argument even without stand your ground law. My theory is that the anti-gun lobby is using the Zimmerman case as an excuse to bash the stand your ground laws.

Even after watching the video, the most important point to stress is that there were only two direct eye witnesses to the beginning of the incident - Zimmerman and Martin. That's it. Every other witness brought into the case either did not directly see the beginning of the incident or was a character witness.
It's entirely possible that Zimmerman attacked first and that Martin could have been standing his ground. The thing is that Martin couldn't have mounted such a defence in court, owing to the fact that he is dead. However, no charges were brought against Marton because he is dead.

I still stand behind what I said in the first thread.

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.

It was Mark O'Mara who summed up the crux of this the most succinctly:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
"How many 'coulda beens' have you heard from the state in this case, How many 'what ifs' have you heard from the state in this case?"
- via CNN, 12th July 2013

"Onus probandi" of the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and because this was a criminal and not a civil case, 'coulda beens' and 'what ifs' although they might be reasonable where the standard is only on balance of probabilities, they are most certainly not in this case.
Personally I think that the law in question is stupid and the fact that there even was a gun probably added to the temperature of the climate of the incident but the law is as it stands and courts must apply laws as they stand, nothing more and nothing less.

Bagwan

29th July 2013, 13:37

The jury came up with the verdict , having seen loads of info on Zimmerman , but not having seen the info in the video about Martin .

Pretty much all of that info about Martin seems pretty pertinent to the issue , and since it wasn't used , we should be able to assume it wasn't admissible in court .

The video tosses rocks in many directions over the fact that those facts weren't used , not over the issue of whether they would have changed the verdict .
Whittle agrees with the verdict , but hints at a bigger picture .

The video is actually largely irrelevant , in regards to the trial , but , important for the general public to understand .

D-Type

29th July 2013, 13:58

I recall many years ago being told by a young lawyer that "We have courts of law, not courts of justice". I think I'm beginning to understand what he meant (based on this and other cases).

Tazio

29th July 2013, 14:15

Even after watching the video, the most important point to stress is that there were only two direct eye witnesses to the beginning of the incident - Zimmerman and Martin. That's it. Every other witness brought into the case either did not directly see the beginning of the incident or was a character witness.
It's entirely possible that Zimmerman attacked first and that Martin could have been standing his ground. The thing is that Martin couldn't have mounted such a defence in court, owing to the fact that he is dead. However, no charges were brought against Marton because he is dead.

I still stand behind what I said in the first thread.

It was Mark O'Mara who summed up the crux of this the most succinctly:
Zimmerman jurors suspend deliberations until Saturday - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
"How many 'coulda beens' have you heard from the state in this case, How many 'what ifs' have you heard from the state in this case?"
- via CNN, 12th July 2013

"Onus probandi" of the burden of proof rests on the prosecution and because this was a criminal and not a civil case, 'coulda beens' and 'what ifs' although they might be reasonable where the standard is only on balance of probabilities, they are most certainly not in this case.
Personally I think that the law in question is stupid and the fact that there even was a gun probably added to the temperature of the climate of the incident but the law is as it stands and courts must apply laws as they stand, nothing more and nothing less.I agree with this post in its entirety, and believe that Martin had no intention of confronting Zimm, until he himself was confronted/stalked.

Starter

29th July 2013, 15:52

I agree with this post in its entirety, and believe that Martin had no intention of confronting Zimm, until he himself was confronted/stalked.
By the same token, I'm sure Z had no intention of having a physical altercation with M, via fists, guns or other, until he was attacked.

So what is the bigger offense, attacking someone or stalking someone? There were no innocent parties here.

airshifter

29th July 2013, 16:44

By the same token, I'm sure Z had no intention of having a physical altercation with M, via fists, guns or other, until he was attacked.

So what is the bigger offense, attacking someone or stalking someone? There were no innocent parties here.

Very true. We can never be certain who actually provoked the altercation. If "stalking" is defined as observing, following, and reporting what is taken as suspicious activity to authorities, then we know that Zimmerman did so. However "stalking" in that instance would also be a legal action, that would usually not provoke any time of altercation.

Bagwan

29th July 2013, 16:44

I agree with this post in its entirety, and believe that Martin had no intention of confronting Zimm, until he himself was confronted/stalked.

That seems likely , but it was his own suspicious behavior (his slowing to peer in windows) that prompted Zimmerman to suspect him , so possible to see him as the aggressor , especially having stashed some burglary tools .
So , given these tools were away from the point of confrontation , we should be able to assume he had returned to confront him .

I agree , though , it aint black and white , pardon the expression .

Tazio

30th July 2013, 02:57

(his slowing to peer in windows)
So , given these tools were away from the point of confrontation , we should be able to assume he had returned to confront him .I agree , though , it aint black and white , pardon the expression .

Not necessarily Bag's,
it was not established in court that the tools were his, or were they?
As to Martin peering into windows, It's my understanding (I know I am quilty of fuzzy thinking now and again) Chubby was the only eyeball witness to this assertion. I'm not saying GZ is lying, only that dead men tell no tales.

As Starter so aptly put it:
They ain't no innocent parties up in here"

Here is part of the encounter described by Zimmerman:

"Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was. He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone. The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere", "from the darkness", and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes". Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, then Martin said "You got a problem now" and punched Zimmerman. As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times". Martin told him to "Shut the **** up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk

Got an ass-whippin' for trying to sus out a brotha' :rolleyes: :fat:

Don't get me wrong, as I stated I agreed with the not guilty verdict in the way it was articulated by Rollo :bulb:

ioan

30th July 2013, 19:04

Here is part of the encounter described by Zimmerman:

"Zimmerman said he left his truck to find a street sign so he would be able to tell the police dispatcher where he was.

Funny stuff, he was protecting the neighborhood but he didn't know where he was.
To me it looks like he was far from home looking for troubles.

He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address,

Another misleading information from GZ, he wasn't following Martin, he was just slowly driving behind him! Good one, isn't it?! if he would have just drove at normal speed he would have found the address and wouldn't have had any issue with anyone.

but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone. The altercation began, he said, when Martin suddenly appeared while Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle. He described Martin at different points in the interviews as appearing "out of nowhere", "from the darkness", and as "jump[ing] out of the bushes". Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a ****ing problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, then Martin said "You got a problem now" and punched Zimmerman. As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help "probably 50 times". Martin told him to "Shut the **** up," as he hit him in the face and pounded his head on a concrete sidewalk

Got an ass-whippin' for trying to sus out a brotha' :rolleyes: :fat:

Mr. GZ read way too many cartoons.
This time he was lucky, so he should hang up his gloves and stop playing Batman, he clearly isn't up to it.

Starter

30th July 2013, 21:38

Another misleading information from GZ, he wasn't following Martin, he was just slowly driving behind him! Good one, isn't it?! if he would have just drove at normal speed he would have found the address and wouldn't have had any issue with anyone.
I really need your help here. I confess to ignorance on this point - just exactly what law was Z breaking by following someone in his truck and not directly interacting with him? I guess, if he did it over several days, it could be classified as stalking, but I doubt any cop in the world would arrest someone for doing it once. So exactly what were the grounds for M to attack Z?

Tazio

31st July 2013, 02:56

I think what it is that irks me a little is GZ was not even on neiborhood watch patrol at the time, he just saw someone he thought looked suspicious while he was out on the town packing heat!!!

Zimmerman's father said that, while his son was not on duty that night as Neighborhood Watch captain, there had been many break-ins and he thought it suspicious that someone he didn't recognize was walking
I'm glad Martin kicked his ass. At least Mr Zimmerman has a better understanding of why he was rufused by the police force.
Also I bet Martin afer he suprised chubby and beat him down, didn't say (asd Z has stated):
"Shut the F()ck up". This was around the time Z said he screamed for help "fifty times". I'd rather think (and do believe) Martin said as he pummeled him:
"Shut the f)(ck up Bitch!!"

airshifter

31st July 2013, 06:43

I think what it is that irks me a little is GZ was not even on neiborhood watch patrol at the time, he just saw someone he thought looked suspicious while he was out on the town packing heat!!!

I'm glad Martin kicked his ass. At least Mr Zimmerman has a better understanding of why he was rufused by the police force.
Also I bet Martin afer he suprised chubby and beat him down, didn't say (asd Z has stated):
"Shut the F()ck up". This was around the time Z said he screamed for help "fifty times". I'd rather think (and do believe) Martin said as he pummeled him:
"Shut the f)(ck up Bitch!!"

You don't have to be even in a neighborhood watch to report crime, or to observe someone while doing so. Nor to carry a weapon for self defense.

You seem to take great delight in the fact that Martin got the best of Zimmerman... right up to the point it got him killed. Do you somehow see his as a winning situation?

Tazio

31st July 2013, 10:40

Bagwan

31st July 2013, 12:58

I think what it is that irks me a little is GZ was not even on neiborhood watch patrol at the time, he just saw someone he thought looked suspicious while he was out on the town packing heat!!!

I'm glad Martin kicked his ass. At least Mr Zimmerman has a better understanding of why he was rufused by the police force.
Also I bet Martin afer he suprised chubby and beat him down, didn't say (asd Z has stated):
"Shut the F()ck up". This was around the time Z said he screamed for help "fifty times". I'd rather think (and do believe) Martin said as he pummeled him:
"Shut the f)(ck up Bitch!!"

Now , hold on ,Taz man .
Can we assume that Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit , so "packing heat" would be his right ?
He didn't whip it out until he was underneath , being beaten up .
He didn't walk in "all cowboy" guns ablazing .

Bagwan

31st July 2013, 13:01

No, I see Zimmerman getting "the bejezus" knocked out of him as a hurtin' situation.
IMO it's best that if you go around blowing children away it should be requisite that you've received from them, what is commonly referred to down here as a "thorough ass-whippin'"

Would you feel like handing one of those out , though , to the guy who was casing your joint or the one trying to stop that happening ?

Starter

31st July 2013, 13:22

No, I see Zimmerman getting "the bejezus" knocked out of him as a hurtin' situation.
IMO it's best that if you go around blowing children away it should be requisite that you've received from them, what is commonly referred to down here as a "thorough ass-whippin'"
So you are advocating assault and battery? Particularly since no children were blown away before the assault and no way to have known that Z had a weapon at all in order to justify said assault. It's going to be interesting in your town when your neighbors take up that philosophy.

Tazio

31st July 2013, 15:27

Personally I wouldn't want that chubby, punk ass bitch in any aspect of my life:

•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

•In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. I wouldn't want this freakin' guy lurking around my neighborhodd with a loaded piece.

This guy is packing heat? With that record I would disqualify him even if he got diversion (agreeing to get counseling for his alcoholism) which if the program is completed you receive a no conviction.

This ass-tard is a menace!
I'm glad he got the living bejesus knocked ourt of him. Perhaps now he will be a little more aware and respectful of other peoples "space", and rights.

Bagwan

31st July 2013, 16:36

If it's a choice between the two , though , who do you want in the neighbourhood , the guy who admittedly does a ragged job of looking after your interests , or the guy who , at 17 , already has notable liver damage , suspected of being a result of using illicit drugs that make one paranoid and aggressive , and is looking in windows ?

Don't get me wrong , Taz . This guy is a tool , and clearly can't handle the role he wants to play .

And , I actually don't believe the beating was a bad thing , in one sense .
If it knocks a little sense into him about when to stay back and not stick his nose in too far , then it was a good thing .

If you try for a moment to put aside his apparent desire to "impersonate an officer" , small man style , and you look at him as just a concerned citizen , he was only being vigilant about keeping his neighbourhood safe .
Perhaps he deserves a good smack for being stupid enough to walk into an ambush , but doesn't the presence of the burglary tools nearby cut him a little slack , as it seems he was likely right about his suspicions about the kid ?

It's good to have a little more background about Zimmerman , as it shows a little more of his character , or , perhaps lack thereof .
Perhaps he deserves that beating for the domestic violence , but I'm not so sure about this .

Starter

31st July 2013, 16:56

So you are advocating assault and battery?

This ass-tard is a menace!
I'm glad he got the living bejesus knocked ourt of him. Perhaps now he will be a little more aware and respectful of other peoples "space", and rights.
Thank you for answering my question that you do advocate assault and battery.

Roamy

31st July 2013, 18:14

I agree with this post in its entirety, and believe that Martin had no intention of confronting Zimm, until he himself was confronted/stalked.

Get off the "Lean" dude - It is bad for the brain

Roamy

31st July 2013, 18:20

You should be able to use the "Stand your Ground" in all situations. That clearly means that you can request someone stop from approaching you. So lets use this senario. You are out fishing in a remote canyon and some "shady looking character" is approaching you. At what point do you say stop? and and what point do you react? Of course you all know my reaction so lets hear what you would do.

Tazio

31st July 2013, 20:27

Perhaps if Florida actually prosecuted one of the felony counts Z got arrested for when he assaulted a police officer this killing would not have happened, as I believe even The Great State of Florida does no issue conceiled weapons permits to convicted felons.
Bags, the only evidence their is of Martin looking into windows is Z's account, so I'll consider that for what I think it is worth.
Maybe if Z was denied a handgun because of his alcoholic agression against an officer of the law he may have learned how to use his fists and not have taken what is commonly referred to as a thorough ass-whippin' from Martin! :bounce: :bulb:

Spafranco

31st July 2013, 21:23

D-Type

31st July 2013, 22:43

That is something that I had not heard of. The inference that Zimmerman was drinking.

Not on the day of the Martin affair but eight years ago when he was arrested. See post #34.

ioan

2nd August 2013, 18:12

I really need your help here. I confess to ignorance on this point - just exactly what law was Z breaking by following someone in his truck and not directly interacting with him? I guess, if he did it over several days, it could be classified as stalking, but I doubt any cop in the world would arrest someone for doing it once. So exactly what were the grounds for M to attack Z?

You obviously need help, however I am not sure if I am the right person to teach your to read English.
Or maybe you can tell me where did I say that he was doing something illegal by following M?! LOL
What I said is that GZ was lying about his doings. There you go, I've helped you out with this one.

ioan

2nd August 2013, 18:15

So you are advocating assault and battery?

LOL, you really have a reading issue now.

ioan

2nd August 2013, 18:17

Personally I wouldn't want that chubby, punk ass bitch in any aspect of my life:

•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

•In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence.

I wouldn't want this freakin' guy lurking around my neighborhodd with a loaded piece.

This guy is packing heat? With that record I would disqualify him even if he got diversion (agreeing to get counseling for his alcoholism) which if the program is completed you receive a no conviction.

This ass-tard is a menace!
I'm glad he got the living bejesus knocked ourt of him. Perhaps now he will be a little more aware and respectful of other peoples "space", and rights.

Well well! Thanks for confirming that this 'Batman' is out looking for violence. To me it was obvious from the first second that he was not out protecting the 'hood.

ioan

2nd August 2013, 18:20

If it's a choice between the two , though , who do you want in the neighbourhood , the guy who admittedly does a ragged job of looking after your interests ,....

He wasn't looking after anyone else' interest, he was out to pick a fight.
So no thanks, I rather not have someone like him around at all.

airshifter

3rd August 2013, 05:50

Well well! Thanks for confirming that this 'Batman' is out looking for violence. To me it was obvious from the first second that he was not out protecting the 'hood.

He wasn't looking after anyone else' interest, he was out to pick a fight.
So no thanks, I rather not have someone like him around at all.

Being this thread is intended at evidence and what the jury was allowed to hear, what facts do you have that support such an opinion?

Tazio

3rd August 2013, 17:43

Being this thread is intended at evidence and what the jury was allowed to hear, what facts do you have that support such an opinion?Fair point air' but I think io' has a pretty fair picture of what this freakin' guy was about. Isn't it ironic that a man who has an arrest record that includes two felonies, kills an adolescent with NO criminal record, is viewed by some as an upstanding citizen, which he may have turned into after his serious brush with the law earlier in his life. Martin as it has comes out was no angel, however he never got the chance to become a responsible citizen after his 20's because some vigilante punk blew him away after stalking him to the point of the freakin' guy just wanting to kick his ass! These matters in this exact situation are best left to the authorities, not wannabe’s like jerk-off.

Daniel

4th August 2013, 14:00

airshifter

4th August 2013, 16:35

Fair point air' but I think io' has a pretty fair picture of what this freakin' guy was about. Isn't it ironic that a man who has an arrest record that includes two felonies, kills an adolescent with NO criminal record, is viewed by some as an upstanding citizen, which he may have turned into after his serious brush with the law earlier in his life. Martin as it has comes out was no angel, however he never got the chance to become a responsible citizen after his 20's because some vigilante punk blew him away after stalking him to the point of the freakin' guy just wanting to kick his ass! These matters in this exact situation are best left to the authorities, not wannabe’s like jerk-off.

IMO only if you grossly twist the facts can you find Zimmerman guilty of any wrong or even possibly illegal act. Prior arrests did not lead to charges or convictions of any felony. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his recent warning for speeding.

As I said in a previous post, people with nothing to hide generally don't try to hide anything. We had quite a few people in my area out watching the neighborhood, and even the people up to know good didn't try to ambush them or start any physical confrontation. I'm sure with all the controversy that if they could have charged Zimmerman with a lesser crime they would have given it a try.... but they didn't.

We had a kid up the street that was heading down a road worse than all evidence suggests Trayvon was heading down. It was the actions of residents, not police, that made him see the light that what he was doing could land him in prison when he became of age. I spoke with him about 2am one morning and had a great number of things to say that he didn't want to hear, including how his actions reflected on his family. Yet there was no confrontation, no violence, and no threat to either person. If there was any evidence that Zimmerman started the physical actions or provoked them beyond reasonable, I'd condemn him in a second. But I've yet to see any such evidence.

Tazio

4th August 2013, 16:49

He wasn't looking after anyone else' interest, he was out to pick a fight.
So no thanks, I rather not have someone like him around at all.Or perhaps try out his new skill set.

A physician's assistant reveals that George Zimmerman had been 'training intensely' in MMA in the weeks leading up to his confrontation with Trayvon Martin.I guess we'll never really know. However I'm still glad Z received a thorough ass-whippin'.

Tazio

4th August 2013, 17:09

IMO only if you grossly twist the facts can you find Zimmerman guilty of any wrong or even possibly illegal act. Prior arrests did not lead to chargesWho is twisting facts here?

•In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. So you don't think it is illeagle to strike a police officer while she is detaining one of your bro's :confused: :laugh:
He wasn't prosecuted because his attorney negotiated a bro deal/plea.

airshifter

4th August 2013, 17:36

Prior arrests did not lead to charges or convictions of any felony.

The full quote, not the partial you used. ;)

Who is twisting facts here?

So you don't think it is illeagle to strike a police officer while she is detaining one of your bro's :confused: :laugh:
He wasn't convicted because his attorney negotiated a deal/plea.

He wasn't convicted because the charges were reduced, then dropped. You can never be convicted of a crime you don't go to court for. And let's be real here... if he was even remotely violent with the cop they wouldn't have reduced or removed the charges IMO. Beating on a cop will get you a record in a hurry. I fully admit felony charges were initially made.

In the case of the shooting, the jury was allowed to consider the charge of manslaughter as well, but didn't convict him of any charge.

The arrests resulted in felony charges never tried. But you can be charged with anything that is dropped, or arrested for a felony but never charged. Neither makes you guilty of a felony.

Roamy

4th August 2013, 17:46

Or perhaps try out his new skill set.
I guess we'll never really know. However I'm still glad Z received a thorough ass-whippin'.

And I am glad another houdilam, punk, drug addict is gone from the face of the earth. !!! Amen

Tazio

4th August 2013, 18:05

The full quote, not the partial you used. ;)

Either way you were wrong on the point I emboldened :bulb: ;)

He wasn't convicted because the charges were reduced, then dropped.
air' I never contended he was tried or convicted, only arrested, and as a consequence did a diversion program or face prosecution (for the reduced offense).
Z's father at that time was a retired Magistrate for the Supreme Court of Virginia, and his mother a Court Clerk. I'm willing to bet he had some pretty good legal advice. Understand one thing; if he didn't accept diversion he would have been prosecuted for the reduced offense, so there were consequences to his illegal action, period. And as I have stated twice already on this thread I believe the jury came back with the correct verdict in his trial :bulb:

Spafranco

4th August 2013, 19:49

Exactly.

So, in your opinion and the opinion of Starter the person doing the following,armed and with no evidence of any wrong doing, ignoring the advise of a dispatcher from the police is effectively a hero and not an "aggressor" in this case.
The person that deserved to be shot,in both of your opinions, is Trayvon Martin an unarmed 17 year old coming home from a convenience store. His life ended because he looked "suspicious" was black wearing a hoody or hoodie or whatever the damn thing is named.
Once more the right wingers are all pumped up with synthetic testosterone injected by the likes of draft dodger Limbaugh, Hannity O'Reilly and others. Better to kill him than have him break into a home. Well done fellow citizens. You have once again shown how barbaric and savage we have become when a 17 year old, no matter what he looked like nor where he was coming from can be shot dead by an adult wielding a gun.

This is another fine example of why the second amendment is a redundant piece of heralded constitutional law reflecting 1700's attitudes in 2013. It seems we are doing one thing really well. We are devolving rather than evolving.

I suggest that if the case were that your child was killed by a person like Zimmerman you would not be as vocal about his stand your ground.

You would also know about the actual injuries inflicted on the killer that never seem to be discussed. All you hear is "bashing" his head into the ground or "slamming" his head into same.

The injuries do not substantiate this argument. One of the most prone areas for excessive bleeding due to the number of small vessels, Zimmerman did not have anything but superficial injuries that would be more consistent with a marked abrasion as the result of the surface with which he struck his head.
So Daniel and Stater, if you are a parent , Caucasian and you child is killed while coming back from the store (regardless of you child's record) I'm glad to see that you are in favor of your child being killed.

So all of you Urpean librals. Welcome to USAOK corral. Anything goes, as the name suggests, it is AOK!

ioan

5th August 2013, 18:28

BDunnell

5th August 2013, 19:29

I find it funny how s0ome of the 'law abiding' citizens around here are taking the side of a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong in an unclear situation.

They're not 'law-abiding citizens'. They are people with a desperate desire to take the law into their own hands — nothing more than vigilantes.

Starter

5th August 2013, 21:18

I find it funny how s0ome of the 'law abiding' citizens around here are taking the side of a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong in an unclear situation.
They also go to great lengths to twist truth to make this prick look like an angel.
Disgusting!

Glad you used the word "some". The trial was only about THAT ONE DAY and the events which transpired between Martin and Zimmerman. Most, but not all, of the posters have confined their comments to the issues covered in the trial. So your comment is otherwise overly broad and attempts to paint a picture not in evidence. What either M or Z had done previously isn't really pertinent to what happened that day.

Your assertion that ...."when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong".... ignores that the evidence indicates that the shot didn't occur until the physical altercation was well under way. Assaulting someone and hitting their head on the ground is not what most people would call "might have been doing something wrong". In this country it's pretty much illegal to physically attack another person just because they're watching you or following you. Just as some have said that Z should have ended his involvement when the 911 operator suggested it, M should also have continued straight home and called 911 if he felt that he had been threatened. Neither chose to do it. Still, in my mind, the physical assault trumps the stalking as the worse of the two offenses.

I also wonder from your comment "a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer" if it means that you are suggesting that people should be judged forever on the worst thing they have ever done previously?

Garry Walker

5th August 2013, 21:28

Better to kill him than have him break into a home.
Absolutely. Less criminal scum there is in the world, the better. A good burglar is a dead one. :up:

The injuries do not substantiate this argument. One of the most prone areas for excessive bleeding due to the number of small vessels, Zimmerman did not have anything but superficial injuries that would be more consistent with a marked abrasion as the result of the surface with which he struck his head.

I guess you would have loved him to have been beaten up properly, with preferably a skull fracture before being allowed to defend himself? If three intruders enter my home, threaten me with a knife and in defence of my family I shoot them all, but I escape without injury despite my life having been in danger, would you say I have gone too far? Or should I have allowed them to cut my throat first and only then defend my family? It seems you would prefer the second option.

So Daniel and Stater, if you are a parent , Caucasian and you child is killed while coming back from the store (regardless of you child's record) I'm glad to see that you are in favor of your child being killed. Demagogy.
Firstly, I hope my child won't turn out a burglar and a druggie. Secondly, if my child attacked someone without any cause and that person in self-defence shot him, well, I wouldn't be happy obviously, but my stance on this issue would not change.

It is funny that idiots with some certain political agendas are still trying to make this a race issue.
Florida blacks benefit from Florida 'Stand Your Ground' | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/)

I find it funny how s0ome of the 'law abiding' citizens around here are taking the side of a violent person with a record of hitting a police officer when he he shot a black young person who might have been doing something wrong in an unclear situation.
They also go to great lengths to twist truth to make this prick look like an angel.
Disgusting! :laugh:

They're not 'law-abiding citizens'. They are people with a desperate desire to take the law into their own hands — nothing more than vigilantes.

What an idiotic "assessment". The only vigilante here was the one who attacked first and rather deservingly, got shot.

Garry Walker

5th August 2013, 21:30

He wasn't looking after anyone else' interest, he was out to pick a fight.

Any proof of that? Thought so.

Spafranco

6th August 2013, 02:12

Any proof of that? Thought so.

You asked Ioan a question and assumed the answer in your own post.

That is exactly what most of us here that believe there was a miscarriage of justice feel. You have had him(Trayvon Martin) tried and convicted and as you state above without a sense of dignity to a young victim of gun violence "criminal scum". What would you really like to have said, Walker?

airshifter

6th August 2013, 04:32

"What the jury heard" convinced them that killing Martin was a shooting justified in self defense. So in reality the law and the jury decided that the young man some are attempting to paint as innocent was endangering another persons life to the point that his shooting did not result in any conviction of wrongdoing.

I'm curious for all those so opposed to the "stand your ground" laws, why only Zimmerman shouldn't have stood his ground? If in fact nobody could legally stand their ground the first aggressor would be the one in the right, and the other should flee. But, what if you can't flee due to being less capable? Do you just scream for help and take a beating?

I'm not at all surprised that a question I posed much earlier during this issue was never answered by many. If the same circumstances took place, but Zimmerman killed Martin with a lethal blow, would people think of the issue different?

BDunnell

6th August 2013, 10:16

You asked Ioan a question and assumed the answer in your own post.

Except the answer he assumed is precisely the opposite of the one he intended, because of his poor English. 'Thought not' would have been accurate.

BDunnell

6th August 2013, 10:18

I'm not at all surprised that a question I posed much earlier during this issue was never answered by many. If the same circumstances took place, but Zimmerman killed Martin with a lethal blow, would people think of the issue different?

I'd still think there was a blood lust on the part of some.

Garry Walker

6th August 2013, 17:42

Except the answer he assumed is precisely the opposite of the one he intended, because of his poor English. 'Thought not' would have been accurate. Oh funny, more personal attacks from dunnell. What a surprise :laugh:
As I have said before, english is not my native language. So please be so kind and do enlighten me on why was what I said incorrect. Show us your wisdom.

That is exactly what most of us here that believe there was a miscarriage of justice feel. You have had him(Trayvon Martin) tried and convicted and as you state above without a sense of dignity to a young victim of gun violence "criminal scum". What would you really like to have said, Walker?
Young victim? He was a druggie, with criminal past who attacked someone who perhaps was not doing something smart, but it sure was not illegal. Martin was no victim in this case. By all accounts, he brought this on himself.

BDunnell

7th August 2013, 00:02

Oh funny, more personal attacks from dunnell. What a surprise :laugh:
As I have said before, english is not my native language. So please be so kind and do enlighten me on why was what I said incorrect. Show us your wisdom.

Not a personal attack, just a legitimate correction. 'Thought so' indicates that the person of whom you were asking the question does actually have proof for their statement. 'Thought not' does not. Quite easy.

Spafranco

7th August 2013, 16:26

Oh funny, more personal attacks from dunnell. What a surprise :laugh:
As I have said before, english is not my native language. So please be so kind and do enlighten me on why was what I said incorrect. Show us your wisdom.

Young victim? He was a druggie, with criminal past who attacked someone who perhaps was not doing something smart, but it sure was not illegal. Martin was no victim in this case. By all accounts, he brought this on himself.

A druggie? A criminal? Attacked a person?

Gary, please do me a favor. Why not admit your real reason for calling the death of the young man a good thing and in the process you will cleanse yourself of everything that is hindering or may be hindering your vision of reality. This is not an insult. It is a proven and credited point of view that people who have a right wing view differ from those with a left wing view. However, critical thinking can allow the person to take a more thought provoking analysis of the events during certain times.

airshifter

8th August 2013, 05:23

Spafranco

8th August 2013, 18:44

Critical thinking?

Illegal drugs in his system, burglary tools hidden during the incident, and at a bare minimum engaged in a violent fight in which the jury decided was sufficient enough for a second party to fear for his life to the extent of justification of deadly force.

What the jury heard was not the entire story, but it was enough to decide that it was legal for this person to be killed in another persons self defense. A lot of the "critical thinking" seems based on emotions rather than facts, which is a very flawed model of critical thinking IMO.

Fact > fiction in critical thinking skills.

Once more another person has decided Trayvon Martin's guilt and the jury did also. That much I cn agree with you. Beside that, I look at it and peruse the situation and without a shadow of a doubt in any other western/industrialized country, Zimmerman would be in prison. No if's ad's or but's. I could almost guarantee it.

A person being followed for no reason other than suspicion and the fact that he had tools that were "supposedly for a burglary" was shot dead because he accosted or was said to have because he was being followed. Where is the aggression. Only with Zimmerman. Oh, and in every industrialized/western country he would NOT have had the gun as it would be illegal.

Gary Walker could have his "druggie, criminal" to fret about. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Critical thinking Airshifter does not explain your answer as you assume and presume all at once.

Bagwan

8th August 2013, 19:53

Once more another person has decided Trayvon Martin's guilt and the jury did also. That much I cn agree with you. Beside that, I look at it and peruse the situation and without a shadow of a doubt in any other western/industrialized country, Zimmerman would be in prison. No if's ad's or but's. I could almost guarantee it.

A person being followed for no reason other than suspicion and the fact that he had tools that were "supposedly for a burglary" was shot dead because he accosted or was said to have because he was being followed. Where is the aggression. Only with Zimmerman. Oh, and in every industrialized/western country he would NOT have had the gun as it would be illegal.

Gary Walker could have his "druggie, criminal" to fret about. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Critical thinking Airshifter does not explain your answer as you assume and presume all at once.

So far I haven't seen a list of the tools said to be used for burglary . If we had seen them , we could judge as well if they were tools used for such purposes .
As it is , we have to trust the court , if that's what they deemed them to be .

Surely , if we trust that to be true , must we not take that as some proof that there was potentially more to Trayvon's trip to the corner store than just a pack of skittles and a watermelon iced tea .

It isn't that much of a stretch to see having tools used for burglary , and stashing them , so as to avoid be caught with them , as being justification of Zimmerman's suspicion firstly , and being the reason he was acting abnormally enough to draw that suspicion in the first place .

Having stashed them backs the idea that he was returning to confront Zimmerman , who was , somewhat foolishly , following him into an ambush .

Spafranco

9th August 2013, 03:01

So far I haven't seen a list of the tools said to be used for burglary . If we had seen them , we could judge as well if they were tools used for such purposes .
As it is , we have to trust the court , if that's what they deemed them to be .

Surely , if we trust that to be true , must we not take that as some proof that there was potentially more to Trayvon's trip to the corner store than just a pack of skittles and a watermelon iced tea .

It isn't that much of a stretch to see having tools used for burglary , and stashing them , so as to avoid be caught with them , as being justification of Zimmerman's suspicion firstly , and being the reason he was acting abnormally enough to draw that suspicion in the first place .

Having stashed them backs the idea that he was returning to confront Zimmerman , who was , somewhat foolishly , following him into an ambush .

I could go to a football game with a cheese-head hat. Are you going to assume that I am a Packers fan? Is there any sense of horror in all this pertaining to Trayvon Martin. All I see is apologists for Zimmerman who, if he kept to his own business none of this would have happened. It's a disgrace and a disgrace to even go on the word of the Saintly Zimmerman for your presumed happenings of that evening.

airshifter

9th August 2013, 06:08

Critical thinking Airshifter does not explain your answer as you assume and presume all at once.

I have assumed or presumed nothing. My thought process is based on facts. Something which it seems many keep choosing to ignore in hopes of furthering the idea that Martin was just an innocent kid doing nothing wrong.

Zimmerman was not tried in a country that would jail someone for defending their life. He was tried in a country that allows a person to defend their life and property.

Spafranco

9th August 2013, 16:09

I have assumed or presumed nothing. My thought process is based on facts. Something which it seems many keep choosing to ignore in hopes of furthering the idea that Martin was just an innocent kid doing nothing wrong.

Zimmerman was not tried in a country that would jail someone for defending their life. He was tried in a country that allows a person to defend their life and property.

Sure, most western countries would exonerate a person that was defending himself from an attack that was instigated by another. You did presume/assume that the tools were weapons for burglary. How do you, Zimmerman,his lawyers of the jury conclude that. You comment about defending your person and property is in direct correlation to an antiquated system of laws where an innocent can be killed carte blanche and not one person that I can see from my experience on this board that has a predominately conservative point of view has stated or even implied that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I am certainly at a loss that the victim who has not committed a crime is the criminal.

You think this was an act that is consistent with protection of one's person and property?! Are you one of those that states USA #1?

This sure is not the country I grew up in or the morals I learned. I look at this verdict as shameful, just as in the Casey Anthony scenario. You believe she was innocent too based upon your other posts and those of many more.

airshifter

9th August 2013, 17:30

You did presume/assume that the tools were weapons for burglary. How do you, Zimmerman,his lawyers of the jury conclude that.

I assumed nothing. The tools were stated as such by the professionals investigating the case. Though from my understanding not admitted in court, previous history of such tools and "gifts" of jewelry indicate a trend as well. Being Martin was not on trial I really don't care other than how they relate to why he was there and what he was doing. Your argument seems to be that everything thinking these were burglary tools has been fooled. What evidence exists that shows they are anything else?

You comment about defending your person and property is in direct correlation to an antiquated system of laws where an innocent can be killed carte blanche and not one person that I can see from my experience on this board that has a predominately conservative point of view has stated or even implied that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I am certainly at a loss that the victim who has not committed a crime is the criminal.

Following a person is not a crime, this has already been established as fact based on laws in this country/that location. As for the actual physical altercation nobody knows for sure other than Zimmerman who of the two elevated it to the point of physical. We do however know as fact that Martin was beating Zimmerman to a point where he was justified as defending his life when he killed Martin. Such a beating is in fact a criminal act, thus Martin was a criminal.

I have once again assumed nothing, and your stereotype of me does not fit my political point of view.

You think this was an act that is consistent with protection of one's person and property?! Are you one of those that states USA #1?

Zimmerman called the cops out of concern for property. Martin did not, but instead called his friend and made some racist remarks. If really in fear he would have called the cops. The jury determined that Zimmerman was justified in protecting his person, once again consistent with law.

As for the USA #1 thing, no I'm not one of those. I feel this country has many flaws, IMO often due to political correctness and pandering to those that don't do much to make it a better country.

This sure is not the country I grew up in or the morals I learned. I look at this verdict as shameful, just as in the Casey Anthony scenario. You believe she was innocent too based upon your other posts and those of many more.

Nor was it the moral values I learned. I learned to respect elders and authority, not to engage in a fight when someone approached me. I also learned that if I was in fear of a person to flee and seek an appropriate authority figure to deal with it.

As for your Casey Anthony comments, based completely on assumptions made by you. Practice what you preach and accept that you do not have any real clue to my thought process or political views. Anyone that observed my posts would know that I rarely see anything as black and white but most often gray area.

But let me state very clearly.... do not state things that I have not said as opinion of fact of mine. I find it quite offensive and to be honest it simply reduces your claim of being of sound character and without bias. But feel free to quote anything I have said within the complete context of what I have said, as I have no issue supporting my views and the thought process behind them.

Bagwan

9th August 2013, 18:44

I could go to a football game with a cheese-head hat. Are you going to assume that I am a Packers fan? Is there any sense of horror in all this pertaining to Trayvon Martin. All I see is apologists for Zimmerman who, if he kept to his own business none of this would have happened. It's a disgrace and a disgrace to even go on the word of the Saintly Zimmerman for your presumed happenings of that evening.

Having a cheese head hat on your head is one clue to you being a packers fan , but perhaps not in any way definitive , certainly .

I hope you realize that I believe Zimmerman was an idiot for following Martin into what appears to have been an ambush .
As a member of his neighbourhood's watch team , he , although off-duty , was still watching the neighbourhood , and saw a man who he deemed to be someone acting suspiciously .

We have now seen some evidence that Zimmerman was , as you inferred , no saint .
His past is definitely checkered .

However , much of this trouble seems to have been a while back .
Of course , we shouldn't assume he is now a better person , but , given time passed , it might point to some change in character .

If you contrast that to Martin , he is said to have been a good kid , moving in a bad direction .

That this all happened is a horrible thing for all involved .
Neither of them were saints , and one of them is gone .

I started this thread to help us all understand a little more about what happened here , as new information started to come to light .
It's really more about what the jury didn't ever get to hear .

From what they heard , they deemed that Zimmerman was protecting himself , thus , not guilty .

Spafranco

9th August 2013, 22:10

Having a cheese head hat on your head is one clue to you being a packers fan , but perhaps not in any way definitive , certainly .

I hope you realize that I believe Zimmerman was an idiot for following Martin into what appears to have been an ambush .
As a member of his neighbourhood's watch team , he , although off-duty , was still watching the neighbourhood , and saw a man who he deemed to be someone acting suspiciously .

We have now seen some evidence that Zimmerman was , as you inferred , no saint .
His past is definitely checkered .

However , much of this trouble seems to have been a while back .
Of course , we shouldn't assume he is now a better person , but , given time passed , it might point to some change in character .

If you contrast that to Martin , he is said to have been a good kid , moving in a bad direction .

That this all happened is a horrible thing for all involved .
Neither of them were saints , and one of them is gone .

I started this thread to help us all understand a little more about what happened here , as new information started to come to light .
It's really more about what the jury didn't ever get to hear .

From what they heard , they deemed that Zimmerman was protecting himself , thus , not guilty .
Fair enough, I take your point. There is lots that I disagree with what Airshifter stated just as he did with what I had to say and others also. Open discussion is fine. In this case all we can do is agree to disagree :) :)

Bagwan

9th August 2013, 22:23

Fair enough, I take your point. There is lots that I disagree with what Airshifter stated just as he did with what I had to say and others also. Open discussion is fine. In this case all we can do is agree to disagree :) :)

Why do we need to agree to disagree ?

I'm certainly open to your trying to convince me that Trayvon was an innocent young man .

Spafranco

10th August 2013, 16:04

Why do we need to agree to disagree ?

I'm certainly open to your trying to convince me that Trayvon was an innocent young man .

That is the crux of everything. Right brain left brain. I am done with this topic as it pertains to certain individuals making the killer a victim and the pretentious manner in which they try to dismiss their loud exhortations for the defense of killing/in my opinion murdering young Martin. Now, there is this defense by Airshifter that I don't know his thought process. I will grant you that Airshifter every day of the week. Your conclusion that Zimmerman making a phone call to the police and Martin making one to a friend is what made Tayvon guilty and Zimmerman. I must remember the next time I walk outside and am prepared to make a call that I check with everyone else that they are calling the police. Otherwise, I will have this fat bumbling wannabe cop the favorite of the gun lobby killing an innocent 17 year or in my case....well, let's leave it at that.

Bagwan

10th August 2013, 17:43

Starter

10th August 2013, 21:30

Zimmerman called the cops , as he should have , and was asked to watch from a distance .

He clearly didn't keep his distance , and we all agree , I think , that this was not smart .
Haven't seen much to disagree with that. I don't disagree with it either.

Essentially , he wasn't gunning for Martin .
All of the evidence presented at the trial seems to back this up.

You would have a very different scenario without the beating .
Had there not been a witness saying a beating occurred , I think I would also have difficulty believing Zimmerman's account , even with the displayed blood .

As it is , though I tend to agree with the jury , especially after all the extra info that has come out .
The jury, and all of us of course, can only come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence and testimony presented at the trial. Without said evidence and testimony, the verdict may well have been otherwise.

It would seem that some individuals would like to have "justice" mean only what they want it to be and not something for everybody. Sorry for you agenda driven folks, but sometimes minorities, just like everyone else, do bad things. Mentioning other cases has NO bearing on this case. It is very true that there have been, and most likely will be, many cases where the minority participants were the ones in the right. It does not seem that this was one of them - and the jury (containing NO members of this discussion board) found in Z's favor under the existing law. One fact, little noted in the various threads and ignored by some posters, is that Z's defensive team never used the so called "Stand Your Ground Law" as part of the defense. Based on the evidence, the jury found Z innocent of the charges against him anyway.

Also it should be noted that, unless you are a resident of the state of Florida (I'm not), the laws in that state are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS and either their correctness or need for change is a concern only for the people who actually live under said laws. It's too bad some can't separate emotion from logic. Logic and rule of law enable civilization. Emotion enables lynching parties. And minority folks are all too often the guests of honor at those parties.

Spafranco

11th August 2013, 03:05

Zimmerman called the cops , as he should have , and was asked to watch from a distance .

He clearly didn't keep his distance , and we all agree , I think , that this was not smart .

However , once he made that decision , we might examine a little of what might have occurred , with a little logic .
Zimmerman is characterized by some as being a vigilante cowboy , but he didn't enter the potential ambush with gun drawn . This could point to his being(stupidly) blissfully unaware of any danger .

Essentially , he wasn't gunning for Martin .

You would have a very different scenario without the beating .
Had there not been a witness saying a beating occurred , I think I would also have difficulty believing Zimmerman's account , even with the displayed blood .

As it is , though I tend to agree with the jury , especially after all the extra info that has come out .

As I said , convince me .
How do you see it being played out , Spafranco ?

Bagwan, the simplest way I can put this as a human being with the ethical and moral sense to see that in this country as displayed by the previous commentator that the turpitude elicited says much about the value of certain types of people.

The same person can stand on his pedestal and be shocked and in awe at the commentary of some of us but then he has the audacity to tell you me and everyone else that it is none of your business.
Bagwan, that in essence is the why Zimmerman was killed, murdered and his killer no matter how many ways it is told saw a boogeyman and shot him for looking suspicious. The altercation resulted not by the actions of Trayvon Martin, but, by the actions of Zimmerman.