The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: Dave Workman on March 21, 2012, 02:32:03 PM
-
Trayvon Martin case: Indict shooter, not the law, in Florida
Gun prohibitionists and anti-self-defense advocates are capitalizing on the shooting of an unarmed teen in Florida three weeks ago to attack the Sunshine State?s stand-your-ground law?
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/trayvon-martin-case-indict-shooter-not-the-law-florida
-
Thanks, it was a good read, instead of all this hysteria riding the airwaves.
-
I think the "stand your ground" policy is a complete red herring - the duty to retreat, or lack thereof, isn't really the material issue here, and I wholeheartedly agree that people are blaming that policy based on an agenda and not based on the merits of this case. The big question here isn't whether Zimmerman retreated, but rather the question is whether he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. Another potential issue in my mind is who initiated the conflict, since it was Zimmerman who began following Trayvon. If Zimmerman didn't have a reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm or if he initiated the conflict, he can't really argue self defense, at least not in any fashion that would absolve him of any and all charges. However, neither of those determinations is affected whatsoever by the lack of a duty to retreat (i.e, the "stand your ground" policy). As such, I think the anti's are just using this incident as a convenient way to attack Florida's self defense laws.
For my $0.02, I think there are sufficient facts in this case that Zimmerman should have been arrested, and I think the Florida PD messed up by not arresting him. I'm not saying he's definitely guilty and should be punished, as that's for a jury to decide, but rather I think there are sufficient facts out there that cut against Zimmerman to support at least a charge of manslaughter. I completely expect that, barring circumstances that paint a completely obvious self-defense scenario, I will be prosecuted should I ever have to discharge my weapon in self defense. The facts here aren't all against Zimmerman, but they aren't all in his favor either, and this is not a clear cut case of self defense. Rather, it's shades of gray, and it's worth remembering that self defense is an affirmative defense. To not bring charges in the first place given the facts of this case seems like a clear mistake in my mind, and it's anyone's guess as to why they chose not to (and there are plenty of people guessing as to why). Once charges are brought, all the facts can then be gathered and presented and he can argue his case of self defense to a jury (if it even makes it that far). By not making the arrest when the facts supported it, they've brought tons of attention to this case and given the anti's a way to attack Florida's strong self defense laws, even though the policies they're attacking have very little to do with these circumstances (i.e., the stand your ground policy).
In any event, it's my understanding that the Florida state attorney will bring the case to a grand jury on April 10th and they'll decide whether to go forward with an indictment based on the evidence presented, so we'll find out what happens then. In the meantime, I guess we'll have to hear about people protesting and twisting the facts, all while blaming a "stand your ground" policy which isn't even the material issue in this case.
-
If the comments made in Dave's column are indeed accurate it sounds like Zimmernam screwed up royally and should face the music. This will either be interesting or frightening to follow as the antis try to spin this against SYG laws.
-
To my thinking, this has little to do with gun laws at all. The way I heard the story, (and the truth may never be known) Martin was just walking with a bag of skittles and talking to his girlfriend on the phone and this lunatic Zimmerman starts following him down the street. Sounds like a guy looking for trouble, and maybe his trigger finger was itching.
I'm all about gun rights and right to protect and defend yourself and everything else, but the fact remains that an unarmed teenager was shot down by a guy who could just as easily driven away and avoided conflict altogether.
The focus should not be about an attack on gun laws, but on punishing a foolish man who had no business hassling and then killing a kid who was seemingly minding his own business.
It will be interesting to see how this story continues to unfold, and I look forward to hearing others opinions on this matter, whether they share my views or not :)
-
Thanks, Dave!
Surely complicated. Did Martin have a lawful right to pass through the neighborhood? Yes. Did Zimmerman have a lawful right to follow Martin? Yes. Had Martin broken any law? Unknown. Was it a good idea for Zimmerman to follow Martin? Actually by law that isn't relevant, even though it might seem like a pretty stupid idea. I'm assuming he followed him on foot, and apparently at a distance, if he was also talking to the Police dispatcher.
I recall when some cities had unarmed vigilantes, the Guardian Angels. They were highly trained in martial arts and went about freely at will to 'police' high crime areas to ensure citizen safety. It was apparently quite legal, though Law enforcement often didn't appreciate the 'help'.
If after Zimmerman followed Martin, at some point Martin turned to challenge Zimmerman, even to attack him, the scene changes, maybe moving up to assault, and/or threats to do serious bodily harm. Possibly Zimmerman attempts to retreat and cannot. If this turnaround escalated to aggravated assault and battery against Zimmerman no crime was committed if Z was in fear of his life or great bodily injury. The report of someone crying out for help seems to lean Z's way. It's unlikely someone with a gun pulled on them is going to shout "HELP!" simply because it could cause the armed person to react with a trigger pull. Still, it's possible.
Odds are that Zimmerman's defense will be that Martin turned on him, came towards him aggressively, challenged and threatened Zimmerman, then escalated the encounter to bodily assault: at which time Zimmerman feared for his safety or life, called out for help, then drew his pistol to shoot his assailant.
Personally I can't see any reason to arrest Zimmerman until more facts in the case are developed by police investigation, plenty of time for that. Law enforcement would be incredibly busy if it was routine to arrest people for being stupid. At present there's no evidence or proof that Zimmerman committed a crime, at least in the eyes of law enforcement. Not knowing the facts prevents accusations against either man. However in reading between the lines, apparently Martin was not of a stellar character, busy running for altar boy of the year, but rather had a rap sheet like a roll of toilet paper.
-
From what I read Mr. Zimmerman was following Martin in a car. And, yes. The rest of the details need to come out once the investigation is completed.
-
Interesting! Following in a car certainly puts a whole different spin on it. Real hard to explain why he would ever get out of the car if he is an entirely innocent party. Though all of that is legal as well, it doesn't sound real good....
-
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law needs revision.
In West Virginia, the law that involves use of a gun when out of your home goes into great detail with regards to self defense. If you initiate the incident, you can't use a gun to defend yourself. This prevents someone starting an altercation and then shooting their opponent "in self defense."
Had this occured here in WV, Mr. Zimmerman would have been arrested, as a result of the 911 call which showed he was not in imminent danger, but, claiming there was something "suspicious" about the victim, went ahead and approached and initiated contact.
Neighborhood Watch is not law enforcement . . . sounds to me that Zimmerman was a cop-wannabe.
-
While the facts are still a bit foggy, my initial thought is that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. He informed 911 dispatch that he was going to follow a 'suspicious person' against their advice. There was apparently no confrontation at the time of the call. I think Mr. Zimmerman will have a very hard time substantiating a claim of self defense.
There was a similar incident in Utah where the neighborhood watch followed a group of teenage girls. The difference was that one of the girls called their father about being followed and he showed up with a gun. Both the father and the neighborhood watchman were armed and engaged in a heated verbal confrontation. The father ended up shooting the neighborhood watchman, in self defense according to him, resulting in paralyzing injuries to the neighborhood watchman. The father was found guilty for attempted murder. Keep in mind that Utah is very gun friendly state. I posted a couple of links to that story below.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7252008 (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7252008)
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700051632/Bluffdale-man-guilty-of-attempted-murder-in-neighborhood-watch-shooting.html (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700051632/Bluffdale-man-guilty-of-attempted-murder-in-neighborhood-watch-shooting.html)
-
Gentlemen:
I happen to concur with the consensus here.
It appears that Mr. Zimmerman did, indeed, unnecessarily initiate the confrontation.
I think he probably acted outside the parameters of the SYG law. I think he will be lucky that I'm not called as an expert witness to testify...<tsk>
I think I will have more to write about on this!
::)
-
Based on the limited information that has come out, it would seem Treyvon Martin was the party likely to fear for his safety, not Mr. Zimmerman. If you're a minor, followed by someone in a car while walking at night on a deserted street, the person then gets out and approaches you, then starts addressing you aggressively...it's not hard to see imagine how the situation might have developed. I don't know if Mr. Zimmerman did anything to impede Martin continuing down the street or otherwise acted to restrain or restrict his movement, but from there to fight of flight is a very short distance. The stand your ground argument might best be used by Martin's family, not Mr. Zimmerman.
-
I made a comment that was entirely uncalled for and wasn't necessarily based on fact!
"However in reading between the lines, apparently Martin was not of a stellar character, busy running for altar boy of the year, but rather had a rap sheet like a roll of toilet paper."
According to info I saw on one website, and sorry to say I don't remember which one, there were references to Martin having many prior problems with law enforcement or whatever. Now I don't see that anywhere else. My apologies to those here and to the family of young Mr. Martin, I was in error on that one!
-
I made a comment that was entirely uncalled for and wasn't necessarily based on fact!
"However in reading between the lines, apparently Martin was not of a stellar character, busy running for altar boy of the year, but rather had a rap sheet like a roll of toilet paper."
According to info I saw on one website, and sorry to say I don't remember which one, there were references to Martin having many prior problems with law enforcement or whatever. Now I don't see that anywhere else. My apologies to those here and to the family of young Mr. Martin, I was in error on that one!
Not to worry. There's a lot of information floating around out there. When I wrote that column,, I used the term "allegedly less than stellar"and I got jumped. It was an accurate assessment and I stand by it. A lot of people are saying a lot of things. It' not really clear what is right or wrong..
But I can say this with certainty: There were two people in that confrontation. One of 'em started it and he didn't have to. He's the one still breathing, and he's not out of trouble by a long shot.
addendum:
Debate raging about Treyvon Martin case; Was ?SYG? law even relevant?
While the broader public debate is raging over the slaying of Treyvon Martin in Florida and whether this was because of the ?Stand-Your-Ground? law, gun rights activists across the map are focusing on a different question, whether the law is even relevant in this case.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/debate-raging-about-treyvon-martin-case-was-syg-law-even-relevant
-
Thanks!
Yes, it looks like life as he knew it is over too.
-
I do feel sorry for him if he gets convicted. They will be all over him in prison.
-
Personally I can't see any reason to arrest Zimmerman until more facts in the case are developed by police investigation, plenty of time for that. Law enforcement would be incredibly busy if it was routine to arrest people for being stupid. At present there's no evidence or proof that Zimmerman committed a crime, at least in the eyes of law enforcement. Not knowing the facts prevents accusations against either man. However in reading between the lines, apparently Martin was not of a stellar character, busy running for altar boy of the year, but rather had a rap sheet like a roll of toilet paper.
No evidence or proof he committed a crime? Seriously? There's no dispute that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, it was Zimmerman who pursued Martin, and Martin was completely unarmed. While that may not be a first degree murder charge, there was more than ample evidence to make a prima facie case for other degrees of murder. There is ample evidence that he committed a crime, in large part because Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin.
Now, there is a possible affirmative defense Zimmerman can present to mitigate or completely overcome certain charges (i.e., self defense). However, Zimmerman's claim of self defense is far from airtight, as, at the very least, Martin was completely unarmed. Even if Martin pushed or threw a punch at Zimmerman, ask anyone who's studied criminal law or even taken a basic concealed carry course whether you're allowed to use lethal force in response to, say, a fist fight, and they will tell you that the force you use must be proportional to the force being used against you. I'm not saying there couldn't be facts here that lead to a claim of self defense, but we don't have those facts yet. Given that, I don't buy for a second that the police didn't have probable cause at the time of their arrest, and I think they made a blatant mistake when they failed to make an arrest with indisputable evidence that Zimmerman pulled the trigger and with only a dubious claim of self defense cutting against that. That's probably one factor in why the police chief involved stepped down about an hour ago. :P
-
As I mentioned, lacking the facts in the altercation and shooting I can't say that Zimmerman should be or should not be arrested: lacking facts.
However I must take exception to this comment:
"Even if Martin pushed or threw a punch at Zimmerman, ask anyone who's studied criminal law or even taken a basic concealed carry course whether you're allowed to use lethal force in response to, say, a fist fight, and they will tell you that the force you use must be proportional to the force being used against you."
That information is incorrect. In many states the law does not require equal force at all. The requirement is only 'In fear of your life or of grievious bodily injury'. I understand your thinking and meaning, but that's not the way the laws read.
In many cases you have a huge disparity of force that leaves one person helpless in an attack, say only with physical violence with the hands. Punching out a little old lady and then choking her neck with the hands, under your premise, she may only defend herself with equal force, to fight back with her hands! Wrong: she may pull out her .357 magnum and blow the scumbag into kingdom come, legally thank God!
This is an extremely inportant issue to me because of injuries I suffered, which prevents me from using the natural weapons I used to have. By law I may have an equalizer to defend myself and it may be used legally against an unarmed man who is viciously assaulting or attempting to do great bodily harm.
Not saying any of that applies to Martin and Zimmerman, just that it is the law. Still, I don't know the facts on that case as yet so I can't make a hasty judgement.
-
I do feel sorry for him if he gets convicted. They will be all over him in prison.
I don't feel sorry for any murderer...and that is what Zimmerman is IMO.
There are lots of issues involved here.
Standing your ground isn't one of them.
-
I have a few problems with this.
It makes no sense to me that Zimmerman did not get arrested or at least hauled in until the details were settled. I do not deal with this like those in law enforcement But it seems like there is another story everyday about a citizen protecting themselves and getting hauled off to the pokey until proving it was truly necessary. This just seems 180 degrees off from everything you read about.
Zimmerman is being tried in the court of public opinion (maybe justly) fanned by some that see this as an opportunity rather than the tragedy it is. What were the facts that led the police to not arrest zimmerman? Everything we keep reading about certainly point to him being a " white hispanic", Racist", "wannabe cop", with a police record who may have been under the influence of something..... but we will never know.
Because the police in his town are such screw ups? Really?
Now I have known my share of LEOs and they are just as human as the rest of us , But I really have a hard time imagining them blowing it this bad. Maybe it is true, time and many,many investigations will tell. I see it as a bad situation that is just going to get a whole lot worse.
RIP Treyvon.
Mr Zimmerman, better have some good legal council. Or at least a better Pr person.
-
Devil advocate here I guess, but the public does not know the details of this issue. Sure the majority that is currently involved with fanning this issue makes it seem like Treyvon was an innocent All American high school kid. In reality we the public and those fanning the issue do not the specifics and only going off of what the media is airing.
The witnesses that have been interviewed by main stream media say that Zimmerman was on top of the boy with his leg straddled over Treyvon indicating that Zimmerman was the aggressor. If they saw this much, why did they not see him shot Treyvon. There are only bits and parts that we are hearing.
I wonder what will happen should the investigation come out that local law enforcement did their job. Will the public still want the Chief to resign? The public is just jumping to conclusions and they need to let the investigation take its due course.
As far as feeling sorry, again I don?t know if Zimmerman just flat out murdered this kid. I really deep down don?t think that he was out there to kill.
-
I was always told that the most unreliable witness is the eyewitness. I really wonder what exactly went on, as I hear many many conflicting details. This one we'll have to wait for an official report on for the story as they tell it.
-
Some interesting updated information showing another side of the coin:
http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/zimmerman-was-on-the-ground-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin#ixzz1q3yaSmgV
See links in story and update at the bottom of page given above.
Another witness described here with another view of who attacked whom:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
-
And there's more!
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/03/why-was-trayvon-martin-photo-altered.html
http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/fox-tampa-breaks-silence-on-trayvon-shooting-witness
Martin was visiting his father's house because he was kicked out of school on a ten day suspension. There were reports that he had 'Behavioral Problems' in school. He was 6' 2" and on his high school football team which his father coached, but had left the team and the school for some reason. He was attending his second high school and staying with his mother until the ten day suspension occured, as I read it. His mother lived 250 miles away. It appears that he left the school and football team where his father coached and enrolled in another high school where his mother lived, unknown why at this point as all school records are sealed.
One school official stated he was suspended for being 'Tardy'. First reports were that it was a 5 day suspension. Actually it was a 10 suspension and this was supposedly only for 'Being in an unauthorized area' according to another school official. However a 10 day suspension is the last serious step before being expelled.
More links:
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
Police Report: http://tinyurl.com/6rvj3os
Zimmerman 911 call records over a considerable period of time: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf
911 Calls from night of shooting: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html
Fox Orland info [may be repeat]: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/subindex/news/trayvon_martin
-
Well now, that changes things a bit....
I can understand the witness wishing to remain anonymous. I cannot image the amount of hate he will get from a certain constituency pushing this (mis)carriage.
-
I would hazard a guess that there had to be some substantial evidence of the self defense justification claim for PD to not arrest on scene.
-
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.
This is the problem I have with the whole thing.
Standing your ground and self defense do not mix with following someone.
I'll wait for the courts...we won't get any 'facts' from the news.
-
Zimmerman has done a dis-service to legal responsible gun carriers if he gets a pass under this law.
HTC Vision
-
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.
This is the problem I have with the whole thing.
Standing your ground and self defense do not mix with following someone.
I'll wait for the courts...we won't get any 'facts' from the news.
I see a possible different perspective. Zimmerman was one of the main Neighborhood Watch guys, evidently for a long time. That's an elected position after local Neighborhood Watch meeting when folks are selected to be on a Watch roster, with duty schedules etc. He wasn't just a local nutcase vigilante, he was doing what he was supposed to do on Neighborhood Watch, decided by a casual local election process. He had a Concealed Carry Permit.
Problem is it's SOP for 911 operators to tell ALL callers not to do anything about any crime in any way, regardless of the crime, just let the police handle it when they finally get there.
Zimmerman knew there were recent burglaries and Martin fit a vague general description. He also knew Martin was not a local resident in their locked, gated, private community. He may have only wanted to get a better look at him, and possibly make it obvious that he had been seen by local Neighborhood Watch. He might have been checking to see if Martin was a guest at a local home?
I believe his mistake was getting out of his car, but that might be different if Martin disappeared into an area and Zimmerman simply followed on foot to get a look at where the unknown stranger went. That's a fairly reasonable, and legal, scenario.
If 6' 2" football player athlete Martin then jumped out of the shadows, violently knocked him down and started beating him nearly to death the rest is self explanatory. According to several witnesses Zimmerman was knocked down and screamed out to neighbors for help first as he was being beaten. No help arrived and as a last resort he drew and shot.
One thing that really stands out to me is that Zimmerman never pulled his gun until he was getting pounded into the dirt. That pretty much eliminates a violent wannabe tough guy super hero syndrome. It appears more likely to me that he may have been simply following, maybe stupidly but innocently, to gather information, just like Neighborhood Watch does in many communities.
That's why there may be more to this than meets the eye, which might explain why police filed no charges against Zimmerman.
-
I agree that if he approached and started to question the suspicious individual then he was in the wrong. That is for the police to do. However he was the watchman of the neighborhood and he was there to keep watch. If he kept his distance and was just keeping an eye on the suspicious individual, and the suspicious individual attacked him, and he felt at that point that his life was in danger then I feel that he was justified.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that he was assigned as the watchman. A watchman is supposed to keep an eye on the neighborhood.
-
More details, disturbing rhetoric emerge in Trayvon Martin case
As more details emerge in the shooting of black Florida teen Trayvon Martin by Sanford resident George Zimmerman, it is becoming more evident that too many people have rushed to judgment?
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/more-details-disturbing-rhetoric-emerge-trayvon-martin-case
-
I agree that if he approached and started to question the suspicious individual then he was in the wrong. That is for the police to do. However he was the watchman of the neighborhood and he was there to keep watch. If he kept his distance and was just keeping an eye on the suspicious individual, and the suspicious individual attacked him, and he felt at that point that his life was in danger then I feel that he was justified.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that he was assigned as the watchman. A watchman is supposed to keep an eye on the neighborhood.
It has been reported that that neighborhood has no official 'neighborhood watch', and Zimmerman was self appointed. I can't find where I read that now, and it may be false
Regardless...
This is my take...he was armed, followed a person with as much right to be there as himself who was unarmed. and ended up creating a circumstance to kill.
If you live in an area with high crime and someone is following you while you are simply traveling to and from a place you have a right to be who was defending themselves?
Trayvon Martin may not be an altar boy...but he wasn't looking for trouble that night...Zimmerman was and created it.
Zimmerman has done us all a disservice.
-
I agree that if he approached and started to question the suspicious individual then he was in the wrong. That is for the police to do. However he was the watchman of the neighborhood and he was there to keep watch. If he kept his distance and was just keeping an eye on the suspicious individual, and the suspicious individual attacked him, and he felt at that point that his life was in danger then I feel that he was justified.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that he was assigned as the watchman. A watchman is supposed to keep an eye on the neighborhood.
It has been reported that that neighborhood has no official 'neighborhood watch', and Zimmerman was self appointed. I can't find where I read that now, and it may be false
Regardless...
This is my take...he was armed, followed a person with as much right to be there as himself who was unarmed. and ended up creating a circumstance to kill.
If you live in an area with high crime and someone is following you while you are simply traveling to and from a place you have a right to be who was defending themselves?
Trayvon Martin may not be an altar boy...but he wasn't looking for trouble that night...Zimmerman was and created it.
Zimmerman has done us all a disservice.
Zimmerman had just as much right to be there and if Trayvon attacked him Zimmerman was in his right to defend himself.
-
I understand that.
My point is that Zimmerman had no cause to do anything but call 911. Martin was not observed breaking and entering or damaging anything, and if he was Zimmerman still had no right to confront him.
He called 911 from his car. Why did he leave his car? If you are afraid, you stay there or move away. Why did Zimmerman get close enough to Martin to be 'attacked'? Neighborhood watch members have no law enforcement privileges.
Only two people know what actually happened. One is dead. That was unnecessary and wrong IMO.
-
That is what I guess we will have to find out from the investigation. I agree that if he confronted Trayvon it could be questioned as to why he took that action. But at the same time if Zimmerman kept his distance and Trayvon approached Zimmerman then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself. That is of course just my opinion and I do not have all of the facts.
The problem that I have with this is that there is a mass of people jumping to the conclusion that law enforcement did not do their job and that Zimmerman was on some type of racist racial hunt. All I am saying is that if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman he was right to defend himself however at the same time if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon then Zimmerman created a the problem to a certain extent.
One thing for sure is that the media is fanning this in one direction and that is not fair. Also there is so much anger being directed to Zimmerman without knowing the facts and that really bothers me. I just hope that the outcome is that law enforcement did their job because that would be very concerning as well.
This is just terrible all the way around.
-
That is what I guess we will have to find out from the investigation. I agree that if he confronted Trayvon it could be questioned as to why he took that action. But at the same time if Zimmerman kept his distance and Trayvon approached Zimmerman then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself. That is of course just my opinion and I do not have all of the facts.
The problem that I have with this is that there is a mass of people jumping to the conclusion that law enforcement did not do their job and that Zimmerman was on some type of racist racial hunt. All I am saying is that if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman he was right to defend himself however at the same time if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon then Zimmerman created a the problem to a certain extent.
One thing for sure is that the media is fanning this in one direction and that is not fair. Also there is so much anger being directed to Zimmerman without knowing the facts and that really bothers me. I just hope that the outcome is that law enforcement did their job because that would be very concerning as well.
This is just terrible all the way around.
I have to admit...I think Zimmerman was on a racist racial hunt. He was profiling. I wear a hoodie at work in the winter. Does that make me a target? Have we heard what Martin was doing that made him suspicious besides he was wearing a hoodie?
Martin could not have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman stayed in his car. Zimmerman left his car because he was armed and was prepared to kill.
In my mind this whole situation is wrong. No one acted properly, and we as gun owners and enthusiasts will suffer because of it.
-
That is what I guess we will have to find out from the investigation. I agree that if he confronted Trayvon it could be questioned as to why he took that action. But at the same time if Zimmerman kept his distance and Trayvon approached Zimmerman then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself. That is of course just my opinion and I do not have all of the facts.
The problem that I have with this is that there is a mass of people jumping to the conclusion that law enforcement did not do their job and that Zimmerman was on some type of racist racial hunt. All I am saying is that if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman he was right to defend himself however at the same time if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon then Zimmerman created a the problem to a certain extent.
One thing for sure is that the media is fanning this in one direction and that is not fair. Also there is so much anger being directed to Zimmerman without knowing the facts and that really bothers me. I just hope that the outcome is that law enforcement did their job because that would be very concerning as well.
This is just terrible all the way around.
I have to admit...I think Zimmerman was on a racist racial hunt. He was profiling. I wear a hoodie at work in the winter. Does that make me a target? Have we heard what Martin was doing that made him suspicious besides he was wearing a hoodie?
Martin could not have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman stayed in his car. Zimmerman left his car because he was armed and was prepared to kill.
In my mind this whole situation is wrong. No one acted properly, and we as gun owners and enthusiasts will suffer because of it.
I disagree, as somone litteraly covered from head to toe in tattoos I have been stopped while walking at all hours by both police officers and nieghborhood watch. I have never felt the urge to jump on top of somone who wanted to know what I was doing and pound thier head in to the dirt.
Sent from this thimgy using tapawhatzit
-
I've been stopped and asked too...but not by someone that had been following me with no real reason to do so What gave them the right to ask? If I'm asked by an LEO I comply. If someone walks up to me on the street and questions me, I ask if they're writing a book and suggest what they can kiss.
You may have reacted the same depending on how Zimmerman acted and what he said.
We will never know
-
noname, I was 19, clean cut and tattoo free walking in a suburb of San Francisco at 0200, sober as a judge, just getting night air, but two local PD who harassed me, ran my info and gave me all KINDS of grief about being where I had a legal right to be, merely because it was 2AM. Part of the reason is I was a sailor, the other I think because they were bored. I did have a cop pull his sidearm on me on Mare Island Naval Shipyard for walking down the street with my hands in my pockets. A complaint had been called in that someone was trying to break into cars. Wasn't me.
I also fear we will never know the real facts, except this - a young man is dead, an older mans life is ruined, and any immediate family on both sides are also going to suffer for years.
-
............................................
Zimmerman had just as much right to be there and if Trayvon attacked him Zimmerman was in his right to defend himself.
Still, indisputable facts, 17 year old smaller male unarmed, 28 year old older larger male armed......
-
You have that backwards.
Martin was 6'2" and a football player. Zimmerman is the smaller of the two.
-
You have that backwards.
Martin was 6'2" and a football player. Zimmerman is the smaller of the two.
That is correct.
It doesn't really change anything though.
-
............................................
Zimmerman had just as much right to be there and if Trayvon attacked him Zimmerman was in his right to defend himself.
Still, indisputable facts, 17 year old smaller male unarmed, 28 year old older larger male armed......
It does change things. Again this is only if the fact comes out that this 17 year old was beating Zimmerman up. If the witness is credible, Zimmerman did not fire until he was getting beat up. If he was getting beat up who knew when he would have stopped punching and maybe Zimmerman would have lost his life. Fists can be weapons too.
There have been instances where I have seen people in my neighborhood walking with hoodies or apparel that cover their head and there have been thoughts of what is this person up to. I will slow down to make sure that they are just passing through and when I see them from my house I will walk out to get a closer look and to let them know that they are being watched.
The media keep stating that Zimmerman was following Trayvon which make is sound like he was within a close proximity. How far was he from Trayvon and how did he attack Zimmerman is what I would like to know. Again I do not see anything wrong with him keeping and eye on Trayvon as he was the neighborhood watchman. If Trayvon was up to something and Zimmerman didn?t do anything then there would have been wrong with that as well.
This is what I feel that happened. Zimmerman saw suspicious activity, wanted to make sure that he was indeed suspension, place a call to 911, kept and eye on the suspicious Trayvon and then was attacked. The media is saying that Zimmerman was following Trayvon per the call that Trayvon placed to his girlfriend but we do not know how Trayvon reacted after his call.
We will have to see what they find and until then Zimmerman is innocent in my eyes. Now if he is found to have been innocent then he has been done a disservice. The ones that have done a disservice to the gun laws are those that are jumping to conclusions and using this as ploy to attack the gun laws and self defense laws.
-
Heard something on the local news tonight that puts the proper spin on this. A local reporter, talking about a Seattle march for Trayvon, described him as "a person who was shot while walking down the street" (not quite a direct quote, but close). No doubt where the MSM wants this to go. In the meantime, I still don't know what happened, and probably never will. My impression, though, is that Zimmerman screwed up in multiple instances, and gun owners are going to take the hit.
-
That is the problem right there. Here was not shot just walking down the street and that is what the media is twisting. Anyway this is my last post on this one until the investigation is completed as it is hurting my head.
-
Don't forget the New Black Panthers putting a $10,000 price tag on Zimmerman's head. This group is so radical even the Southern Poverty Law Center lists them as racist and anti-Semite.
I have to ask, did every single involved officer, supervisor, detective, Assistant District Attorney in that city all get stupid overnight, or is there evidence we're NOT seeing yet that shows Zimmerman is in the right...
-
Confusion in Sanford: Is SYG law applicable or not?
While anger over the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida has spread to the Pacific Northwest, it is never a good sign for someone in legal trouble when their attorney can?t get his story straight, or at least make up his mind about your dilemma and how to defend it.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/confusion-sanford-is-syg-law-applicable-or-not
-
If Martin, a non-resident stranger to the area, could legally go about his business at random for whatever reason or interest then Zimmerman would have the same legal right to do the same. Nothing inherently illegal, confrontational or aggressive in Zimmerman following in his car even though 911 said not to. He wasn't 'disobeying a lawful order' as such.
He may not have intentionally contacted or confronted Martin at all in any way. Conjecture, but it's reasonable that within this private gated community where Martin was not a resident, that Zimmerman only followed to see where he might go. He might well have thought he kept a safe distance from contact with Martin. This could be true even if he exited his vehicle, due to terrain, foliage blocking view or due to where Martin actually ended up?
If, that is IF, Martin doubled back and got Zimmerman by surprise and attacked that is the first illegal act of aggression. There's certainly nothing illegal or especially surprising about a local citizen, concerned about recent burglaries, possibly or possibly not a member of Neighborhood Watch, checking up on a mysterious stranger passing through their private gated community. That doesn't impress me as some huge error at all.
Somehow Martin is seen by an eyewitness to be straddling Zimmerman who's down on his back screaming for help. That's not self defense by Martin by any measure! That's aggravated assault with intent to do great bodily harm, plain and simple. One is only legally allowed to stop aggression to the point of safety, not beat somebody into a pulp as they lay helpless on the ground. Can't ignore that aspect.
What impresses me most is the recent reaction to it. If anybody is standing up as racists and aggressors suggesting violence and outright cold-blooded murder it's these jerks publicly flapping their gums! With Jackson, Sharpton, Black Panthers and others suggesting 'Getting even' and an 'Eye for an eye, a life for a life' plus death-threat 'WANTED' posters [!!!] that's some really ugly hate speech. That's obvious threats to do grievious bodily harm or worse!
Where's the public outcry against that? Would I get away with that as a citizen if I said the same things about these people making threats? Not even a slim chance!
One other note: Zimmerman's lawyer said, "In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house."
To that, he quickly added,
"This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"
But we don't see the exact framework and progression of questions that he responded to. Again we have only part of the whole picture. Seems he's wisely saying he has no plans to defend based directly on a hot button issue of 'Stand your Ground' law because it may be tough to prove it applies. Instead defend on simple self-defense against an aggressive attacker, which eyewitness testimony supports. Might be a pretty smart move after all?
-
You have that backwards.
Martin was 6'2" and a football player. Zimmerman is the smaller of the two.
To be fair, Zimmerman was shorter, but Martin weighed a piddly (at least in my world :P) 140 pounds. While I imagine he was an athletic teen, we're still talking about an unarmed 140 pound kid. We're talking about someone that could easily fight in the Bantamweight division of the UFC and whose walk-around weight puts him in the Featherweight division.
Zimmerman was a few inches shorter but much stockier (250 pounds). I'm not saying either had the physical advantage, but this wasn't Patrick Willis fighting a civilian where you have an obvious physical imbalance and can possibly make an argument for a reasonable belief of imminent grievous injury or death (as required for a self defense affirmative defense). We have evidence of a fight where Zimmerman had a broken nose, but unless that fight was turning lethal and unless Zimmerman did not initiate that fight, you don't have self defense. Put another way, if you walk up and punch me in the nose, that still doesn't give me the right to open fire on you. Also, even if Martin was winning the fight, you still have the question as to who was the aggressor that started the conflict. There are facts that cut both ways and there are ample questions of fact here that should be left up to a jury to decide. Simply put, they had ample probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, his defense was far from airtight and they simply dropped the ball in not making an arrest.
The problem now is things have begun to spiral out of control a bit. As armored points out, there are radical groups now putting out bounties on Zimmerman's head, Zimmerman is receiving death threats, and so on. It's really turned into a mess. What frustrates me the most is that even if Zimmerman ultimately proves he acted in self defense, he still could have avoided this situation in so many ways. He could have not followed Martin. Or he could simply have stayed in his car rather than confronting Martin. I think most people who carry a firearm appreciate the responsibility that brings with it and oftentimes do everything they can to avoid needless conflicts. It's too bad Zimmerman didn't get that memo.
-
Is the press "painting" a picture that is less than accurate?
http://vernacularofthelayman.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martin11.jpg (http://vernacularofthelayman.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martin11.jpg)
-
They are painting EXACTLY the picture they want to paint.
-
Is the press "painting" a picture that is less than accurate?
http://vernacularofthelayman.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martin11.jpg (http://vernacularofthelayman.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martin11.jpg)
Yes, sir, I'd say that just about covers it. I wonder if a certain someone would still want to say Trayvon Martin might look like his own son, hmmmm? Those words might get eaten with no mustard & ketchup.
-
Of more than passing interest:
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032612-trayvon-martins-mom-files-trademark-papers
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/trayvon_martin/032612-george-zimmerman-says-trayvon-martin-punched-him-slammed-his-head-into-ground
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/subindex/news/trayvon_martin
-
Not even duct tape can fix stupid . . .
-
Emerging reports about Trayvon Martin distract from attack on SYG
Emerging details about dead Florida teen Trayvon Martin, whose cousin is a Tacoma resident and participated in a vigil for Martin Monday evening, may not be relevant to the incident that cost Martin his life, same as it is still questionable whether the state?s Stand-Your-Ground law is really applicable.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/emerging-reports-about-martin-distract-from-attack-on-syg
-
The latest info that comes out now is that the 'New' Black Panthers honcho who had put out the 'Wanted Dead or Alive' posters, a convicted felon, just got busted for illegal possession of a firearm, an FN pistol.
Eyewitness says Martin came up on Zimmerman and challenged him as he was trying to get in his car and leave, just after 911 said do not engage, and that Martin attacked first. Punched him and broke his nose, knocked him down and proceeded to slam his head into the pavement. Zimmerman's injuries to nose and back of head plus grass stains on his shirt match this testimony and scenario. That is partial explanation for why he wasn't arrested and charged at the time.
More recent news suggests that Zimmerman was a known racist who loathed and hated blacks with every breath. That's why he opened up his home and did in-home tutoring, for free and on his own time, for several local black kids in the area to help them do better in school. According to others he had been doing this for several years. These cold-hearted racists will go to any lengths, won't they?
In addition to the questionably sourced jewelry possessed by Martin and the graffiti incident of defacing public property there are reports that he was also thrown out of school because of being in possession at school of a bag with marijuana 'residue' at that same time.
Looks like the halo is slipping a bit...
-
I did say I wouldn't post again on this until the inverstigation but have a question.
I don't understand. Has it come out that he is a racist? I thought his friend said that he wasn't.
More recent news suggests that Zimmerman was a known racist who loathed and hated blacks with every breath. That's why he opened up his home and did in-home tutoring, for free and on his own time, for several local black kids in the area to help them do better in school. According to others he had been doing this for several years. These cold-hearted racists will go to any lengths, won't they?
-
Sorry buddy, you're a victim of my extreme sarcasm!
What I was saying is that the 'George Zimmerman Racist' label, portraying a hater of blacks, is totally phony: invented by black activists and black-activist media. Major media lives to hear of anything even vaguely racist, hoping they can promote it into full scale race wars in the streets of America: 'STAY TUNED!! DETAILS AND FILM AT 11!!!' Chaos and disaster is their bread and butter.
Zimmerman, rather than a weirdo violent racist is apparently a man who believes in some very profound principles of human decency and is of a sort who will walk the talk! While others wrung their hands about their neighborhood violence, burglaries etc. he went out to stand the Neighborhood Watch detail while they sat in the house watching nothing but the tube.
He took out from his own personal time to tutor neighborhood youngsters, BLACK neighborhood youngsters, for free and on his own time, to help them get better grades in school.
Racist? Anti-black racist? You decide....
-
Gothca. LOL I thought so, but wasn't sure if something else came out. I have shut off all news at this time because I have bald patches appearing on my head from the new. OK maybe not bald patches but it is not helping my headache.
-
"Film at eleven"? I haven't heard THAT one in 30 years! ;D
I think this will be the straw that breaks the back of the blactivist hate groups and fear mongers, IF the truth can get out.
-
No, it won't stop them. They will not let inconveniences like the truth get in the way of a good old-fashioned tar and feather job.
I've literally had to turn off the news when they get around to the Martin case as I find myself glowing bright red when I hear snot-rags like Sharpton running their mouths.
-
Well, get set for serious indigestion, then:
Brady Campaign reaches new low exploiting Trayvon Martin case
The anti-gun Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence has launched a new effort to derail national concealed carry reciprocity legislation by dubbing two Senate bills the ?George Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Acts? after the man who fatally shot Florida teen Trayvon Martin.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/brady-campaign-reaches-new-low-exploiting-trayvon-martin-case
-
bleep it Dave. I'm all out of Pepto right now....
-
I am going for the heavy stuff now. I am popping Rolaids every 60 min.
-
Dance in the blood, they do, without knowing whose blood it is. They will slip and fall, and emerge looking even more foolish and low.
The more that comes out about the "baby" being a thug, and the more we learn about Mr Zimmerman, (registered Democrat? Hmm), the worse the opposition will look.
Mr Zimmerman will be tried, as the President has laid his office already on the side of the young assailant, and he cannot afford to look foolish at this time.
-
Dance in the blood, they do, without knowing whose blood it is. They will slip and fall, and emerge looking even more foolish and low.
The more that comes out about the "baby" being a thug, and the more we learn about Mr Zimmerman, (registered Democrat? Hmm), the worse the opposition will look.
Mr Zimmerman will be tried, as the President has laid his office already on the side of the young assailant, and he cannot afford to look foolish at this time.
young assailant is kind of premature at this point...
No one knows...
No one will ever know...
Zimmerman made certain of that.
-
Sorry, based that off the released police documentation detailing the witness who saw him on top of Zimmerman hitting him. However, an old axiom is there is no witness less reliable than an eye witness.
-
Sorry, based that off the released police documentation detailing the witness who saw him on top of Zimmerman hitting him. However, an old axiom is there is no witness less reliable than an eye witness.
No worries Mr. A...
another old axiom...dead men tell no tales.
This whole situation stinks IMO.
Everyone loses.
-
Justice a double-edged sword; getting things ?right? about Trayvon case
The Seattle Times carries two stories Wednesday about the nationally-debated Trayvon Martin case, and both pieces ? picked up from wire services and Florida newspapers ? carry comments that, in the interest of balance and common sense, must be answered.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/justice-a-double-edged-sword-getting-things-right-about-trayvon-case
-
Interesting to visit other forums, especially gun forums, and see the commentary regarding this case! WOW! For the most part some very heated, angry and insulting comments thrown back and forth. Many are so caustic I'm surprised they weren't deleted, even causing members to be banned!
I find that in this forum, though we have some disgreements and strongly held viewpoints and opinions the dialogue has been entirely civil and 'gentlemanly' overall. I commend all those members here and have to say, this really is one of the nicest little forums on the whole net! Hat's off to those who have kept their cool and contained their emotions, I'm impressed!
-
We have incredible members plus excellent and hard working moderators. When I win the lottery they go on salary...that back pay is gonna hurt... 8)
-
Thanks for the hard work, Dave, we appreciate it very much. There truly is much to be soberly reflected upon behind the foot stamping and harsh rhetoric.
-
I heartily agree!
Yes, thanks to Dave for the great contributions and thanks to all who make this the pleasant place that it is!
-
Interesting to visit other forums, especially gun forums, and see the commentary regarding this case! WOW!
It's interesting to see how many people are willing to reach conclusions based on entirely incomplete information.
-
Interesting to visit other forums, especially gun forums, and see the commentary regarding this case! WOW!
It's interesting to see how many people are willing to reach conclusions based on entirely incomplete information.
Yeah, for a fact! I suggest they never take up skydiving, it's just not for them. Then again, maybe they should....?
-
The ONE thing that made this entire thing blow completely out of proportion, the one mental trick that everyone involved had to perform to march, scream and incite to riot, one common belief -
the complete incompetence of the responding police department from top to bottom. If the marchers and screamer, as well as the reporters and pulpit pounders had stopped to think...ya know, maybe there was a REASON the PD let him go. Maybe we should see what that reason was... But that might interfere with ramping up donations, er, "indignation" by the professional rabble rousers, the fringe lunatic groups and the national figureheads. Since we've been conditioned to always believe it's Barney Fife responding to every call, we expect nothing but utter failure. I don't know about you, but when/if I call my county mounties, I expect and get highly professional behavior and work ethics.
Sorry, it's just that the elephant in the room stepped on my toes.
-
...ya know, maybe there was a REASON the PD let him go.
Amen to that.
Three cops in the video, and a(n unseen) lawyer, minimum. Four hours or so of interrogation. And they let him go, and have not moved YET to arrest him, even given all the uproar.
-
You put a hood on a white person and black people loose their minds, but put a hood on a black person? Why, it's just a hood. And they should be able to walk through white neighborhoods with their faces hooded! Hey, if you don't want me and people like me, (white), in your neighborhoods with my face hooded, don't come into my neighborhoor with your face hooded. As we all know, it's disrespectful and asking for trouble.
-
Fact, Mr. A!
However I believe it was an extremely bad decision for the Chief of Police to step down. He was a veteran officer with a very long and apparently spotless career and up to then, was fully qualified for the job. He had made a tough decision under pressure and from his level of experience, plus the advisors around him, it stands to reason that it was a very valid decision: they were all consumate pros!
However tremendous political pressure was brought to bear. There he should have stood tall like Sheriff Joe or that other great AZ Sheriff and told them to roll it up in a little ball and jam it home deep. He didn't, for whatever reason. Also Chief of Police wields nowhere near the power of office that a Sheriff does.
All hell broke loose because it then cast a bad light on what was likely a good decision: as if to say he had somehow been mistaken when he was not! From there it went down hill at lightning speed, with media and countless self-serving pigs pushing it for all they are worth, which is nothing at all if not less. Because they are worthless in and of themselves they are driven to steal glory and power and influence at any cost, including other's lives. There comes a Day of Reckoning when all accounts will be settled, permanently...
-
You put a hood on a white person and black people loose their minds, but put a hood on a black person? Why, it's just a hood. And they should be able to walk through white neighborhoods with their faces hooded! Hey, if you don't want me and people like me, (white), in your neighborhoods with my face hooded, don't come into my neighborhoor with your face hooded. As we all know, it's disrespectful and asking for trouble.
Interesting, Burley, because that exact thought crossed my mind today regarding folks wearing hoods! When one group wears them to make their statement of belief regarding race it is a grave crime of wicked racism. But if another group chooses to wear hoods as a personal statment regarding race it's all well and good. Somethin' ain't right there, that's for sure.
For a fact I believe both those groups of hoods are wrong and like you say, just asking for trouble!
-
To my narrow viewpoint it's about the same as the baggy pants pulled down to show the underwear and as much butt hanging out as possible. Add in the strange stiff legged, shuffling walk like an infant with a loaded diaper, plus a few other gangster identity statements. It is solely intended to be offensive to others who aren't a 'member' of the group! That's why the butts are hanging out, to say to everyone else, 'Well you all can kiss my...."
-
Let's make sure we keep this thread and board away from that particular taint...I agree that there is a HUGE double standard, has been my whole life, but the particulars here are what bears on this non-case in Florida, where a man who possibly has done nothing wrong is in hiding fearing for his life, and another, who may or may not have attacked him, is dead, and being made out to be a riot inducing martyr. I kinda wish they would bring this into a court so we can see the rightful end...and will Jackson, Farrakhan and Sharpton apologize if he is innocent? Will Spike Lee apologize and pay him off like the nice elderly couple whose lives he ruined? Will Rosanne Barr apologize for tweeting his parents address, maybe pay to move them so her actions won't cause them to be harassed forever? Of course not, they'll turn up the rhetoric, the poison and the vitriol, spewing steaming words of hatred to get more donations and followers - admitting wrong would be suicide to these public figures, no matter how wrong they MAY be.
-
Considering the track record of a few of these muckrakers I'm shocked anybody follows them.
Well, I take that back. I am not shocked. And I am sick of the double standard that exists. The truth is I am not inclined to speak my mind in a public forum as I do not wish to incur the wrath of a certain demographic.
I'm sickened by this whole disaster.
-
The Florida Attorney General is conducting an investigation, we'll see what comes of that.
-
Think I should edit or delete my last posts? No problem as I have no intention of further stirring the pot! Lemme know or else if you like just ace them out with the CZ Forum's Magic Wand there and I'll follow up with a post where I plead insanity.
You know, something hugely peculiar in the 'What's wrong with this picture?' category: to my way of thinking 'Black' is NOT A RACE at all! There are several genetic racial families who may be black, but no one single racial family! Just like 'White', what the heck is that? It isn't a RACE, it's a skin pigmentation, nothing else.
According to my favorite Book we ALL had the same original daddy and mommy. Even the most hardcore evolutionists, like the Dr's Leaky, found that it was irrefutable, without doubt, no question whatsoever:
There ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE BEEN AN ORIGINAL MAN AND WOMAN WHO STARTED HUMANITY!
Whether one uses pure Science, pure Mathematics, pure Logic, Holy Scriptures, other Holy Books or simple basic common sense: WE ABSOLUTELY MUST ALL BE RELATED, BY BLOOD!
Rant: From a Christian perspective, no offense to personal beliefs of anyone here is intended: Beyond interesting the major FAIL of a few people so audacious as to publicly stand up and loudly call themselves 'Reverend' and 'Preacher' who are entirely incapable of the most basic understanding of Genesis 3, or any part of Genesis, or of 'God's perfect plan' as revealed in Scripture, or of any geneaology in the Bible, or of what the Scripture describes as 'Races'! No man or woman who cannot comprehend the most rudimentary and foundational premise of the Bible, as in the 'Creation story' of Adam and Eve being the PARENTS OF ALL MANKIND, should dare to be so bold as to call themselves a Reverend Preacher of the Word of God!
Every Science proves it's physically impossible for mankind to have descended from any other than one original man and one original woman!
We are ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS, like it or not. I happen to like it! :)
-
Not at all Spirit, and the last post is spot on. 8)
-
Everything I've read suggests we are all descended from 1 woman, and also all descended from one man, but they did not live at the same time. Just in case anyone is interested in science ya know.
Here is some fairly well cited info, with plenty of references to good old peer-reviewed journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
-
OK,that line is closed.
Back to the Trayvon case only. :)
-
OK,that line is closed.
Back to the Trayvon case only. :)
Thanks, you may have just prevented more chaos and senseless tragedy...
-
There are forums with religion sections - t'ain't one of them. :)
-
Just as expected, Jesse Jerkson is screaming for new restrictive gun laws, yet again...
http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=18
-
I don't know that site, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them screaming for an AWB - remember, Presidente Calderon was here asking for that just a day or so ago, so using the Florida shooting in connection with the Mexican President's scripted plea, yes, I can see this. No connection with reality, but then when did anti-right people claim a connection to reality?
-
Good point: Truth is a relative thing to the leftists who are lost in their own intellectualism, thinking themselves wise they become fools. Speaking of fools, pretty obvious the good Reverend is spring-boarding off the high emotions and anger coming from the Martin/Zimmerman case to jump right up there and propose more restrictive gun laws. As if that, as 'assault weapons', had anything at all to do with anything at all.
On a related note of taking wicked advantage of prevailing circumstances: the MSM of Mindless Socialist Media have done a fine little blackout job on another story from Sanford, Florida. The plain facts of it are that it's a massive coverup of another very recent racially tinged event in the same town that experienced the Martin/Zimmerman violence.
It's a blackout because they intentionally took the black parts out of the picture and then shoved it all way under the carpet. Intensely racial but this time the tables were turned, with 2 extremely violent young black men attacking an unarmed and helpless white man, beating his head in with a claw hammer, leaving him for dead and stealing his car.
Of course you must see, that isn't news. First they covered up the races of the perpetrators then they did their best to kill the whole story because it didn't play right for the PC crowd or the lefty's tactics of race baiting and working the crowds.
http://www.presstitution.com/how-convenient-mainstream-media-buried-week-old-sanford/
http://sadhillnews.com/2012/04/03/how-convenient-mainstream-media-buried-week-old-sanford-florida-story-of-2-black-men-beating-50-year-old-white-man-with-a-hammer
Important to note that while Trayvon Martin is portrayed as just an innocent child of 17 these two blacks who brutally attacked and may eventually have murdered a white in an unprovoked attack were 18 and 19, only 1 and 2 years older than Martin!
-
Everyone has a spin...
-
And NBC is up to their old tricks...
This time they've edited the Zimmerman 911 call.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/nbc-news-caught-editing-911-tape-of-trayvon-martin-shooting?CID=obinsite
Why is this not making news?? This day my disgust knows no boundaries.
-
No grand jury in Trayvon case; Seattle reacts
Monday?s announcement by Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey that there will be no grand jury in the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case has the attention of Seattleites?
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/no-grand-jury-trayvon-case-seattle-reacts
-
Doesn't mean he won't be arrested, though, but it's a step towards completion. be nice when all the details come out - anticipating some egg on some activist faces, and they will immediately claim is racist to prove them wrong.
-
And if it's white eggs, that will further infuriate them.
-
I certainly admire them for refusing to let mass media inspired hysteria drive the engine! Obviously they are very firm on what the actual facts are as opposed to all the starry-eyed hearsay that's being pumped out.
I wonder when as much attention will be given to the other two young Florida black males, same age as Martin at 17 & 18, who mercilessly and unprovoked, beat a white guy nearly to death with a hammer? He may yet die and hard telling what condition his brain is in now. I guess that's not news. Or the young man murdered for his sneakers? Hmmm...?
Q. Based on what you know now, do you believe George Zimmerman acted in self-defense or did he instigate and escalate a confrontation with Trayvon Martin that turned deadly?
Self defense according to eyewitness testimony.
Q. Based on what you know now, do you believe that the Zimmerman/Martin case has anything remotely to do with concealed carry and SYG laws around the country?
Not legitametely, but only for the anti-gun and racist crowd who are grandstanding and increasing themselves by way of Martin's death and Zimmerman's suffering.
Q. Based on what you know now, do you believe Zimmerman acted within the parameters of SYG?
It appears that he had solid grounds to genuinely fear for his life and to defend himself from being murdered or being maimed and brain damaged for life.
Q. Do you have a concealed pistol license, and why did you get it?
-
Again, Dave, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your faithfulness to the law abiding gun owners who stand against the wicked wiles of evil men who would enslave us.
The remarkable thing is, so many are trying to throw a racist spin on this and anybody with half a brain knows that harks back to remembrance of the times of slavery in America. Yet it is the loudmouths who scream about racism and curtailing gun ownership rights who would truly desire to enslave, and that is enslavement equally of my black brothers and sisters and white brothers and sisters and any other race that comes handy! They would ignore the profound warnings of our founding fathers and instead leave us entirely unarmed and defenseless against those who would overthrow us as a people and a country, that's the real deal here!
-
Maybe not everyone tunes in to the cable News like CNN and the other so called news outlets but since this incident they have all had negative gun messages. They only ones being interviewed are those with anti gun perspectives. This really makes me sick. The media is at it and they are using this as a way to get antigun messages out. They never report on the positive. They have been stating that gun killings are only going up and up since the introduction of castle and stand your ground type law. It is really just sickening the way the media reports and they have no accountability.
-
They are The Media, sir, we have no right to question what they decide The Public Has A Right To Know. They hold nobody above them, and are unto a Fourth Branch of the government, as they wield a power higher than any one branch - because we gave it to them. that's why you see Fairness Doctrine and other slime, because the sources that they don't control gives us better information than they do, sometimes even the unbiased truth...and they can't stand that.
-
Therein is another distinct tragedy. These are people with no regard whatsoever for Truth. To them any means justifies the end, whether known lies, fraud, deception or whatever. They support each other in an 'I'm okay, you're okay' lying make believe world that has no basis in fact or actual Truth, and they just don't care!
It's a sad fact that this extreme low level of moral principles, rather vacancy of same, along with a complete lack of ethics, is the best that our schools could manage to turn out of their Journalism classes! Also major media corporations have based their whole business ethic on outright lies and total fabrications all for the sake of leftist ideals and disrespect for America, the country they have milked for their every dollar.
My belief system says that one day soon they'll stand alone in Judgement but precious little comfort that is now. Plus I'd rather they turned away from wickedness and gave their hearts into genuine Truth that they might survive. What an altogether disgusting circumstance.
Another major factor that really chaps my hide is they're willfully attempting to drive a wedge between me and my dear and much loved friends of other races, to say, "Well, ya know he's one of them, and you know what they REALLY THINK regardless of what they say! You CAN'T TRUST THEM AS FRIENDS!"
What have they got to lose in that? The 'Media' would profit nicely from chaos and race wars in America! Again, the end justifies the means as far as they're concerned, that's obvious!
-
I have heard a report that the news media reporting "unbaisedly" on the recall effort for the Wisconsin Governor signed recall petitions. The station involved promised "investigations"...wonder if they're going to borrow the ones from DoJ, as they aren't doing anything right now...
-
So where is all the hysteria surrounding the killings in Tulsa?
-
There isn't, and their won't be. Wanna know why?
There's no money in it. No way to raise the race card and whip up the people to get those donations pouring in, nothing but plain old crime, no money in it. So justice will happen the old fashioned way, with good solid police work, no marches, no riots, just detectives and street cops doing what they do best. The convicted killers will vanish into the prison system, and we will, if lucky, never hear from or about them again.
-
Considering it's Oklahoma we might hear about them again when they meet their turns with the needle...
Otherwise, yea, I know. I was just gassing about the double standard. Afterall two white guys killed three black folks...
-
Therein is another distinct tragedy. These are people with no regard whatsoever for Truth. To them any means justifies the end, whether known lies, fraud, deception or whatever. They support each other in an 'I'm okay, you're okay' lying make believe world that has no basis in fact or actual Truth, and they just don't care!
It's a sad fact that this extreme low level of moral principles, rather vacancy of same, along with a complete lack of ethics, is the best that our schools could manage to turn out of their Journalism classes! Also major media corporations have based their whole business ethic on outright lies and total fabrications all for the sake of leftist ideals and disrespect for America, the country they have milked for their every dollar.
My belief system says that one day soon they'll stand alone in Judgement but precious little comfort that is now. Plus I'd rather they turned away from wickedness and gave their hearts into genuine Truth that they might survive. What an altogether disgusting circumstance.
Another major factor that really chaps my hide is they're willfully attempting to drive a wedge between me and my dear and much loved friends of other races, to say, "Well, ya know he's one of them, and you know what they REALLY THINK regardless of what they say! You CAN'T TRUST THEM AS FRIENDS!"
What have they got to lose in that? The 'Media' would profit nicely from chaos and race wars in America! Again, the end justifies the means as far as they're concerned, that's obvious!
I was in agreement 'till you left out the liars on the right. Lying is what they all do, it's not solely done by the left. Like the man said, there is no truth in the news and there is no news in the truth.
-
That was a Russian saying about the newspaper Pravda and, (can't remember the name), whose names meant Truth and News. Oddly enough, I've read recent articles linked from Pravda that were more spot on than our own.
-
Getting back on track, so to speak...
Holder?s new challenge: Color blindness; Today?s NRA bash
Wednesday?s Washington Times expects a great deal from Eric Holder....
As Barack Obama?s announced May 10 fund-raising trek to Seattle looms larger, Northwest gun owners are losing confidence that anything will be done to force Holder to act on a scandal that could be more devastating than Richard Nixon?s Watergate.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/holder-s-new-challenge-color-blindness-today-s-nra-bash
-
Hmm, are these Black bleepcats in Florida? if so, pressure should be brought to bear on the state Attorney General. If not, Florida's Attorney General could swear out warrants and ask the current "host" state to assist with arrest and transport...I think.
As much fun as some would think it to be, putting out similar "wanted posters" against the bleepcats would be CERTAIN to bring DoJ down in full force for racially based hate crimes...even if the person printing them was black.
-
BREAKING! Zimmerman will be charged in Trayvon death?WaPost
George Zimmerman, at the center of a raging controversy over his fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, will be charged in that case, according to Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey, the Washington Post is reporting.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/breaking-zimmerman-will-be-charged-trayvon-death-wapost
-
"The Feb. 26 shooting death of Martin has been colored by racial overtones and accusations of blatant media bias for repeatedly showing aged photos of Martin as a smiling 12-year-old, while using a booking photo of a disheveled Zimmerman. Different images of both Zimmerman and Martin have since surfaced, but the two original photos still frequently appear in television broadcasts and newspaper reports."
I was amazed yet again today when I clicked on a current, today, Fox News page and what did I see there? Yep, a 12 year old cherubic faced child and George Zimmerman in a booking photo!
Thing is, Fox has shown correct photos here and there, so it isn't like they don't know! It is clearly an 'agenda' on Fox's part to pull this stuff at this juncture. Fox needs to give up on the snow job that they're an unbiased 'News Agency' and rename their website as a blog, that's what it really is.
They did and currently do exactly the same thing with the Elections coverage. All the pictures of all the Republican candidates show them as halfwit oafs, your basic total doofus, except for Romney who gets more like Playgirl beefsteak foldout coverage!
All I see in every direction from horizon to horizon is gross corruption and full dedication to SELF! It's downright criminal.
-
Just announced a few minutes ago, live on ABC by the Florida Special Prosecutor, George Zimmerman is to be arrested and tried for Murder in the Second Degree. She said multiple times that they do not arrest or prosecute under pressure or petition, and Zimmerman will be tried according to Florida law. This MAY actually work out to both Zimmerman's advantage and the racists DISadvantage, as the truth will out in open court.
-
Can't wait to see the riots when he's acquitted...
-
I don't know how it will go, but one thing is certain - it will not be over by election time. Too good of publicity to waste for the current administration. Drags attention away from the going-nowhere investigation of Fast and Felony Stupid.
-
Yep and for Holder to say that they are going to conduct a thorough investigation on the Police process is such crap. Again just having to chew up the Rolaids as he just turns my insides upside down.
-
He needs to investigate the Black panthers. But he wont. He likes them.
-
They blithely pull the strings any way it suits their selfish political fancy, as long as there's a selfish political buck or selfish career happy meal in it!
I mean, hey, whatever happened to Major Nidal Hasan from Texas? Did I miss his Court Martial somehow? That one's ripe with RACE, plus RELIGION, plus INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, plus GUN LAWS, plus AMERICAN'S SECURITY and TERRORIST THREAT but???
I've heard crickets fart louder...
-
The Terrorist Nidal will probably be "traded" to some group some day...
-
Don't know where my original post on this went, but here's my view in a nut shell......
After reading every single post and reply on this thread, I still say?..
If Zimmerman was Black, there?d be no issue, ZERO, NONE ! ! !
B?HO would have kept his nose WAY out of it !
Spike Lee and Al Sharpton would be scrambling around, looking for something else to B!+<# about ! ! !
Plus, how long do you think it?ll be, before Gloria Allred sticks her nose into this ? ! ?
I tell ya?..If this goes the way I think it will?..
Charley will finally get his race war !
And he?ll get to watch it all, in HiDef, from the comfort of his cell ! ! !
-
It's some really disgusting identity politics as so many feed off of misfortune for their own gain. They know no shame and hold nothing more sacred than self.
-
Well, now even the Judge in Florida is knuckling under to the Media pressure
They set the Bail for Zimmerman at $150,000.00,,,,I realize it could have been higher?.BUT?.Should have been an OR Release ! ! !
The man turned himself in
He?s a respected member of his community etc
In other words, HE?S NOT GOING TO RUN, FOOL ! ! !
-
Holstein, Jersey or Guernsey, they're not particular just so long and they can get a hand on a teat to yank and milk the good old system. Oh, and don't forget to pose just right on that little milking stool! Get the right camera angles, is your hair okay, does that dress make you look fat, is your despicable showing?
Gotta thanks everybody involved in that dog & pony show for one thing: sure gives us one heck of a heads up on 'Carry' and the amazing responsibilities and possible repercussions that come with it. Possibly one should look into whatever is required to protect their physical assets and lifetime's investment and security? It's not but a vapor or a leaf in the breeze when the storm comes to blow...
-
You bet
Incorporate or go LLC
All my asset belong to ______ and I pay RENT ! ! !
YEAH, that?s the ticket ! ! !
Because we all know that when Zimmerman is acquitted, Martin?s family will sue for Wrongful Death
OH, and that?s where Gloria Allred will show her nasty face ! ! !
It?s a great world we live in friends
-
Den, they might not have released him as a partial "protective" custody. I am willing to bet that if he was released he would not be allowed to possess/carry/use a firearm, so letting him loose with all the hate the NBP have stirred up, and he might be an easy target for a lynching. Yes, I wouldn't put it past them at all. As it is, with the high profile on this, Mr Zimmerman is very likely in a single cell, and possibly, (depending on prison population), in his own pod, for his safety.
Lets keep calm and wait for the next move.
-
ABC News Network has released a picture of the back of Zimmerman's head showing that he was bleeding. The picture was taken three minutes after the shooting. Story link below.
http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html
The Martin family lawyer asked how bad could it have been as there were no stitches required. The question I ask is: How bad could it have been had Zimmerman not had the means to defend himself.
Joe
-
Regardless of the amount, it shows the possibility that attack did occur as described. The prosecution will challenge it, of course.
-
The question I ask is: How bad could it have been had Zimmerman not had the means to defend himself.
Joe
Probably would have avoided the entire situation all together and they may both be just fine....I guess we will have to wait for more info. to really have an unbiased opinion, if that's possible.
-
Just in case the pictures of George Zimmerman's head injuries go bye-bye from that website here's another copy at Sadhill at the link. Note to some: Sadhill is extreme so be sure and limit your viewing only to the Zimmerman photos and not the general page content, as it could effect your viewpoint.
http://sadhillnews.com/
-
Too late. I follows some of the links. Good GOD. I weep for this country. Yo.
-
Den, they might not have released him as a partial "protective" custody. I am willing to bet that if he was released he would not be allowed to possess/carry/use a firearm, so letting him loose with all the hate the NBP have stirred up, and he might be an easy target for a lynching. Yes, I wouldn't put it past them at all. As it is, with the high profile on this, Mr Zimmerman is very likely in a single cell, and possibly, (depending on prison population), in his own pod, for his safety.
Lets keep calm and wait for the next move.
Dave, you may be right on point with that
I gues it would have been so much better if Zimmerman hadn't shoot Martin, and Martin had just beat Zimmerman to death...We'd never had heard $#!+ about it
-
Zimmerman was released on bail Sunday night.
-
Den, they might not have released him as a partial "protective" custody. I am willing to bet that if he was released he would not be allowed to possess/carry/use a firearm, so letting him loose with all the hate the NBP have stirred up, and he might be an easy target for a lynching. Yes, I wouldn't put it past them at all. As it is, with the high profile on this, Mr Zimmerman is very likely in a single cell, and possibly, (depending on prison population), in his own pod, for his safety.
Lets keep calm and wait for the next move.
Dave, you may be right on point with that
I gues it would have been so much better if Zimmerman hadn't shoot Martin, and Martin had just beat Zimmerman to death...We'd never had heard $#!+ about it
Den,
I respectfully suggest it would have been so much better if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and not involved himself further.
-
Den, they might not have released him as a partial "protective" custody. I am willing to bet that if he was released he would not be allowed to possess/carry/use a firearm, so letting him loose with all the hate the NBP have stirred up, and he might be an easy target for a lynching. Yes, I wouldn't put it past them at all. As it is, with the high profile on this, Mr Zimmerman is very likely in a single cell, and possibly, (depending on prison population), in his own pod, for his safety.
Lets keep calm and wait for the next move.
Dave, you may be right on point with that
I gues it would have been so much better if Zimmerman hadn't shoot Martin, and Martin had just beat Zimmerman to death...We'd never had heard $#!+ about it
Den,
I respectfully suggest it would have been so much better if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and not involved himself further.
Do we know if he did continue or was he attacked as he retreated? Unless we know that for sure I believe that that is a major conclusion that the media has lead us to.
-
Den, they might not have released him as a partial "protective" custody. I am willing to bet that if he was released he would not be allowed to possess/carry/use a firearm, so letting him loose with all the hate the NBP have stirred up, and he might be an easy target for a lynching. Yes, I wouldn't put it past them at all. As it is, with the high profile on this, Mr Zimmerman is very likely in a single cell, and possibly, (depending on prison population), in his own pod, for his safety.
Lets keep calm and wait for the next move.
Dave, you may be right on point with that
I gues it would have been so much better if Zimmerman hadn't shoot Martin, and Martin had just beat Zimmerman to death...We'd never had heard $#!+ about it
Den,
I respectfully suggest it would have been so much better if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and not involved himself further.
Do we know if he did continue or was he attacked as he retreated? Unless we know that for sure I believe that that is a major conclusion that the media has lead us to.
The original 911 recordings make it clear that Zimmerman was following Martin as he told the operator when asked that was what he was doing. How the confrontation escalated is not known.
-
Den, they might not have released him as a partial "protective" custody. I am willing to bet that if he was released he would not be allowed to possess/carry/use a firearm, so letting him loose with all the hate the NBP have stirred up, and he might be an easy target for a lynching. Yes, I wouldn't put it past them at all. As it is, with the high profile on this, Mr Zimmerman is very likely in a single cell, and possibly, (depending on prison population), in his own pod, for his safety.
Lets keep calm and wait for the next move.
Dave, you may be right on point with that
I gues it would have been so much better if Zimmerman hadn't shoot Martin, and Martin had just beat Zimmerman to death...We'd never had heard $#!+ about it
Den,
I respectfully suggest it would have been so much better if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and not involved himself further.
Do we know if he did continue or was he attacked as he retreated? Unless we know that for sure I believe that that is a major conclusion that the media has lead us to.
The original 911 recordings make it clear that Zimmerman was following Martin as he told the operator when asked that was what he was doing. How the confrontation escalated is not known.
He was told that "We don't need you to do that". At that point we do not know if he stopped following. The question should really be why did Travon attack. The attack is what is in question not Zimmerman's action of following or watching. Travon was the one the used potentially deadly force.
-
If Zimmerman was following in a car as reported, and stopped as suggested by the operator, how did he come to be on the ground getting his head bashed in?
Did Martin run to his car, open the door, and drag him out?
That would be self defense. I just don't think it went down that way.
-
Even if he was following him it did not give Travon the right to assualt him. Unless Zimmerman exibited some type on force on Travon he was in his right to be where ever he was, just as Travon did.
You do raise a good question, why was Travon violently beating Zimmerman's head in the pavement...? That is the million dollar question.
-
Unfortunately, we're just running in circles as we wait for the trial.
-
Unfortunately, we're just running in circles as we wait for the trial.
This. I'm not going to comment any further. I'll just wait to see what shakes out of the Tree of Law.
-
Wow, guys & gals! Your basic expose' courtesy Reuters! Never heard this stuff before, did you?
http://www.newsmax.com/US/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-gun/2012/04/25/id/437099
-
Spirit, thank you for posting the above.
As Paul Harvey might have said: "...and now the rest of the story."
-
I almost had to go to the ER to get my jaw reattached after it fell to mid-chest!
Without doubt it is the finest example I've seen yet of the corrupt, intentionally and knowingly lying, disgusting and thoroughly fraudulent to the core scum, entirely devoid of scruples or ethics of any kind, who present us with daily 'NEWS'! Yes, that's red and it's slanted.
For some newscasters and commentators there should be multiple felony charges handed down as their reward. It's one thing to throw the old spin: it's another to incite potentially murderous racial riots and destruction, incite death threats, directly cause racial attacks on other innocent people, incite MURDER of a possibly entirely innocent man, and to otherwise destroy a man's life when he may be innocent!
This whole thing has been a masterpiece of corruption, misrepresentation and flagrant disregard for any and all things of common decency and personal ethics.
But wait, kiddies, there's more!! Alan Dershowitz, a man of more than passing respect and honor, nails it to the wall here. He calls for murder charges allright, but throws the spin in the opposite direction:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25/dershowitz-trayvon-prosecutor-overreached-with-murder-charge/
-
Wow, guys & gals! Your basic expose' courtesy Reuters! Never heard this stuff before, did you?
http://www.newsmax.com/US/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-gun/2012/04/25/id/437099
Great article Spirit
Says a lot about who George WAS and IS now
Gee, imagine that, a man with a past
Zimmerman hates Blacks SOooo much, that he takes time to Tutor (Black) Kids in Math, both at their home or in his own?.Sound racist to me ! ! !
NOW, where?s the back story on Trayvon Martin
You can?t get one, because the first thing his parent?s did was get a Lawyer
The Lawyer then had Trayvon's records sealed?.And not just because he was a minor either
Think on this?.If Trayvon Martin was an Honor Student, Captain of his Football Team and an Eagle Scout?.The true ANGEL he is portrayed to be, his records would be available to anyone and everyone, to show how honorable HE REALLY WAS
If Trayvon was truly that Honorable Angel, they would have shoved those records down the throat of White America so fast, you couldn?t have timed it with a Shot Timer
Here?s a though;
Why is it that everyone remembers and or keeps bringing up the Rodney King beating, but no one remembers Reginald Denny ? ! ?
-
All the opinions in the world don't generally explain why an unarmed man is dead, at the hands of an armed man that precipitated the encounter. The rest is moot, let a jury of his peers decide.
-
I think there has been a lot of assumption that Zimmerman was the first to initiate the physical confrontation with Martin?.Fact to face hands on encounter
I may be wrong, but I haven?t seen, read or heard of any such record
Did Zimmerman physically approach Martin first, or did Trayvon double back and attack George from behind ?
More evidence seems to lean toward the later
And it?s odd that eye witness accounts seems to reaffirm that fact
The really sad thing is this, there are ONLY two possible outcomes;
One, Zimmerman is found guilty and sentenced to prison (which equals death or solitary confinement, for his own safety)
?Thank GOD, another racist murder is off the streets, and the world is safe again?
Or two, Zimmerman is acquitted and the worse race riot in America?s history erupts?.And trust me folks, this WILL HAPPEN !
Some of the young guns and folks from out of the US don?t remember the two LA Race Riots?.Yes, TWO ! ! !
I do, I lived through them both?.Some very scary times my friends
If this story hasn?t already reached the point, it is very close to a threat to our National Security, just for that reason alone
-
All the opinions in the world don't generally explain why an unarmed man is dead, at the hands of an armed man that precipitated the encounter. The rest is moot, let a jury of his peers decide.
There appears to be some speculation and opinion, unsupported by evidence, in your post.
-
his records would be available to anyone and everyone
Not sure what Florida laws are; is 17 is considered a minor?
-
Not sure what Florida laws are; is 17 is considered a minor?
I fully understand that fact
I think I included that in the post you quoted
The Lawyer then had Trayvon's records sealed?.And not just because he was a minor either
Think on this?.If Trayvon Martin was an Honor Student, Captain of his Football Team and an Eagle Scout?.The true ANGEL he is portrayed to be, his records would be available to anyone and everyone, to show how honorable HE REALLY WAS
If Trayvon was truly that Honorable Angel, they would have shoved those records down the throat of White America so fast, you couldn?t have timed it with a Shot Timer
My point being;
If Trayvon was an Honor Student, his records would NOT have been sealed
Right or wrong, legal or not, his parents know full well that his past will not shine an Angelic light on their sweet Baby Boy
-
"If Trayvon was an Honor Student, his records would NOT have been sealed."
Oh, hey, I think I get it now! Speaking of sealed records, maybe that's what Obama meant when he said, "...if I had a son he would be just like Trayvon..." or something like that...?
-
"If Trayvon was an Honor Student, his records would NOT have been sealed." ;D
Oh, hey, I think I get it now! Speaking of sealed records, maybe that's what Obama meant when he said, "...if I had a son he would be just like Trayvon..." or something like that...?
That is a good one.
-
If Zimmerman was following in a car as reported, and stopped as suggested by the operator, how did he come to be on the ground getting his head bashed in?
Did Martin run to his car, open the door, and drag him out?
That would be self defense. I just don't think it went down that way.
Here is your answer^^...........
There appears to be some speculation and opinion, unsupported by evidence, in your post.
-
If Zimmerman was following in a car as reported, and stopped as suggested by the operator, how did he come to be on the ground getting his head bashed in?
Did Martin run to his car, open the door, and drag him out?
That would be self defense. I just don't think it went down that way.
Here is your answer^^...........
There appears to be some speculation and opinion, unsupported by evidence, in your post.
The problem remains: "That would be self defense. I just don't think it went down that way."
Where once again, "There appears to be some speculation and opinion, unsupported by evidence, in your post."
The speculation and opinion that one person 'just doesn't think it went down that way' is again unsupported by evidence, such as eyewitness testimony and injuries sustained by Zimmerman that disagree with that opinion. Offhand I don't recall any eyewitness accounts or evidence that disagrees with Zimmerman's account of what happened. The latest revelations at some pages I recently linked further supports thoughts that Zimmerman was telling the truth. The latest photographic evidence that finally surfaced, after being held back for whatever reason, supports Zimmerman's claims.
-
Well you know;
When given only the masterfully edited, maliciously misleading and well orchestrated ?Mainstream? Medias account of the ?NEWS? for ones only form of information, it?s not uncommon for some folks to be honestly misinformed
-
Yep!
-
Well you know;
When given only the masterfully edited, maliciously misleading and well orchestrated ?Mainstream? Medias account of the ?NEWS? for ones only form of information, it?s not uncommon for some folks to be honestly misinformed
...and evidence in a court of law can be manipulated too. Lot's of innocent people go to jail and guilty ones walk.
With only one side of the story available it's difficult to tell what the 'truth' is.
We'll only know what is presented to the court.
I'm going to wait for the verdict though and refrain from acquitting Mr. Zimmerman just because the mainstream media goes for the sensational rather than fact.
-
I'm going to wait for the verdict though and refrain from acquitting Mr. Zimmerman just because the mainstream media goes for the sensational rather than fact.
I think that is a wise course of action. I personally believe the sworn testimony and evidence at trial will be more complete, more accurate and less biased than what we have been getting in pieces from the news.
I think it is much more likely that the legal system will come to the correct conclusion than it is that us internet know-it-alls will come to the correct conclusion.
-
There won?t be any hidden evidence on this one
Zimmerman will get a good Attorney or Defense Team, just for the notoriety of it, and they?ll see to it that everything is on the up and up
The problem with a sensationalize trial like this one has and WILL be, there are why too many facets beyond the trial itself
The Judge, the Prosecutor(s) and Defense Attorney(s) will all be looking to make a name for themselves
This trial will become major CASE LAW, sited time and time again in the future
Whether Zimmerman is acquitted or found guilty, the family will come back and sue him for Wrongful Death and drag this on for a few more years
Even when it seems over, it won?t be
-
Whether Zimmerman is acquitted or found guilty, the family will come back and sue him for Wrongful Death and drag this on for a few more years
Even when it seems over, it won?t be
I don't know about florida, but some states specifically bar civil liability suits in incidents that are ruled justifiable homicide. Of course it might be different if he is charged and acquitted vs never charged in the first place. That's a good question for a real lawyer. At any rate, all that stuff is still better than being dead or suffering permanent brain damage from having one's head smashed against the sidewalk.
-
Alan Dershowitz, an esteemed legal scholar, points out: the cards are stacked against GZ from the start! This is a very normal, ordinary, even frequent legal case. That media blew it all out of proportion doesn't change the fact it's a 'run of the mill' case, first dealt with in a proper 'run of the mill' fashion. Originally GZ was not charged: based upon standard police evidence gathering and upon sworn law officer testimony and declarations.
However the intent of various POLITICAL types is revealed. A 'Special Prosecutor' is ILLEGALLY appointed to commandeer the Justice System in only this one particular case! POLITICS overthrew Justice, just as it has across America.
There's absolutely no basis in existing Law to appoint a Special Prosecutor, focusing Special Prosecutorial energies AGAINST ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL out of the mass of humanity!
It couldn't be more clear that from the outset, George Zimmerman by name is singled out and Discriminated against compared to all other persons in the history of their local Jurisprudence. Fair, unprejudiced, 'Equal Justice Under the Law' has already been violated, as have George Zimmerman's Legal Rights. One particular individual is thrown under Special Prosecutorial forces, to act specifically against him, illegally, contrary to established Law. I believe it will require a literal 'Act of God' to insure true Justice for George Zimmerman. I also believe he already has grounds to sue them to the uttermost extent of law for their clear and obvious Discriminations and denial of his Rights to Equal Justice.
-
Well, at least one encouraging sign, the Judge has refused a gag order requested by Prosecution for the GZ court proceedings. Does it sorta make one wonder just what the Prosecution - Special Prosecutor is up to when a request is made to make the whole trial a SECRET PROCEEDING?!!!!!
http://www.newsmax.com/US/NeighborhoodWatch-Media/2012/04/27/id/437310
-
I did not see any mention of the $204,000 GZ raised online for his defense. That was supposed to be in front of Judge Lester today at the same hearing.
-
Hope that buys freedom if he's not guilty!
But a court judge and jury isn't good enough now, thanks to the media and politicians all the way from the President on down who stirred it all up:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/zimmerman-twitter-bail-death/2012/04/23/id/436783
-
Reading that just made me incredibly sad for our society.
A news story I read last night quoted Zimmerman's attorney as saying the defense could cost up to 1 Million dollars. That 204K is just a down payment if that's the tab.
-
Man, I hope that I never have to use deadly force to defend myself. Here in Texas there was a guy that shot a 14 year old intruder this month and the case is now being reviewed by the Grand Jury. Fortunately the shooter has not been charged but to me there is still a feeling of making the home defender the enemy and making the intruder the victim. It should be a open and shut case, no matter how old the intruder is.
I do realize that there is a deferense between this and the Zimmerman case, but it is a shame that they have made Zimmerman out as a killer. Yes maybe I don't have all of the fact but I think that from what I can gather from the media which has completely been on Travon's side it looks, to me, like it was self defense.
I don't care if Zimmerman was following the kid. The LE came to a conclusion the night of the incident and that should have been enough. Anyone can be made guilty when the DA nit picks statements and evidence to death. The only reason this is going to court is because they are playing the race card. It a bunch of crock of you know what. That is my opinion and I stick by it.
-
Here in Texas there was a guy that shot a 14 year old intruder this month and the case is now being reviewed by the Grand Jury.
All shootings in Texas go before a Grand Jury. Regardless of the findings by the Police and DA. In the case of justified shootings the DA usually recommends a 'no bill' to the GJ and they usually agree. That ends the 'criminal' aspect of the shooting. Civil is another bag of snot.
-
The whole thing sickens me
Guilty or innocent, it?s not going to change the fact that the media has lied to the public from the start
Twisting the facts and evidence to sell their agenda
All under the protection and the miss-use of the First Amendment
The Special Prosecutor has done pretty much the same
And she?s done all this to appease the true instigators of hate
Hate is just hate?.And hate sees no color?.But it?s the ones causing that hate that always seems to see things as color
Spike Lee, Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers have stirred up all this hate under the guise of race?.When in truth; They themselves are the true racists
Why is it, that when it?s White on Black, it?s a racist act, but when it?s Black on White, it?s just another terrible crime ?
And when it?s Black on Black?.Funny how it always seems to be the fault of the White Man keeping the Black Man down
It truly saddens me
-
Ahem....
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/S9kS8bm6AcI/AAAAAAAAGOg/ZafvXAhxJPU/s1600/A+AAAL+SHARPTON+JESSE.jpg)
-
Truly poignant
Thank you
-
The chickens have come home to roost on the whole 50's-60's-70's 'thing'. Starting with a Socialist inspired 'Beat Generation' of the 50's, next a Socialist inspired 60's 'Get High, Free Love, Tune in-Turn on-Drop out' delirium culture, followed by general blown out confusion of the 70's hipsters while the enemy invaded our schools, government and courts during all these escapades. SELF and total irresponsibility for anything whatsoever was the mantra and the doors were left unlocked.
The early 80's launched the Ultra-Self greed of the 'Entreprenuerial Generation' craving big bucks any way possible while the enemy completed their invasion when nobody was looking. Things started falling apart by mid-decade and next we knew it was all crashing in flaming wreckage, all according to another's plan. Damage control and hurried bandages ever since, too little, too late.
What we see now is the price that must be paid for yesterday's foolish, selfish irresponsibility that has caused an irresponsible world and overthrow of America from within. It's partly my fault and George Zimmerman is but one of many casualties. Socialists foment racial strife and unrest because their putrid theory requires an oppressed class of 'Proletariat'. Where oppression does not exist it is invented to suit their goals. Fortunately many in America and around the world are getting wise to the game and I pray it isn't too late...
-
The chickens have come home to roost on the whole 50's-60's-70's 'thing'. Starting with a Socialist inspired 'Beat Generation' of the 50's, next a Socialist inspired 60's 'Get High, Free Love, Tune in-Turn on-Drop out' delirium culture, followed by general blown out confusion of the 70's hipsters while the enemy invaded our schools, government and courts during all these escapades. SELF and total irresponsibility for anything whatsoever was the mantra and the doors were left unlocked.
The early 80's launched the Ultra-Self greed of the 'Entreprenuerial Generation' craving big bucks any way possible while the enemy completed their invasion when nobody was looking. Things started falling apart by mid-decade and next we knew it was all crashing in flaming wreckage, all according to another's plan. Damage control and hurried bandages ever since, too little, too late.
What we see now is the price that must be paid for yesterday's foolish, selfish irresponsibility that has caused an irresponsible world and overthrow of America from within. It's partly my fault and George Zimmerman is but one of many casualties. Socialists foment racial strife and unrest because their putrid theory requires an oppressed class of 'Proletariat'. Where oppression does not exist it is invented to suit their goals. Fortunately many in America and around the world are getting wise to the game and I pray it isn't too late...
Telling my age here but I was born in the 70's, sometime I really wish we were back in time where the USA was a "winning team", or at least in that era for the attitude where people pulled together and contributed to the better of the USA, the old Detroit where the Camaro and Mustang were the envy of the world. We have become a complacent society. I want to win and I am tired of losing. I want it to be where "Made in the USA" really means something.
-
Man, it simply breaks my heart! I too long for yesterday and a fresh start to prevent the wrongs that occurred. However 90% of what we 'hear' on various news, including Fox for sure, is slanted and spun. When I talk to folks on the street every single one so far shares the anxiety over today and the desire to CHANGE IT BACK!
Tells me that this next election may hold some real surprises, if the vote count isn't corrupted by the George Soros owned company that's slated to count them. People are far more than dissatified, they're smokin' HOT, have had enough a long time ago! There's a huge ground swell of very angry voters bound and determined to see things turned around in the right direction and to clean out the corruption in high places.
Things like this Special Prosecutor wanting to virtually try George Zimmerman in secret, after media already publicly tried him and found him guilty, are another example of just what we've had more than enough of. Way I see it, we have about one last chance in the next couple of years to make things right. If we miss the opportunity things are guaranteed to get incredibly ugly in hometown USA.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ
Realy belt it out, guys. You'll feel better.
-
Gee, 2 things I loathe and detest, all in one video! She ought to be on trial with the rest of her slimey Socialist ilk for the crime of Treason.
-
Just shoot me now....PLEASE ! ! !
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_zHuL5dKM0
This one makes me feel better.
-
Yeah, you gotta love Skynyrd?.And it?s a bit off topic
But honestly my friends, it?s the Outlaws (The Guitar Army) that Rock my day?..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfqvNNG4Jx0
-
C'mon guys. Let's stay close to the topic.
-
C'mon guys. Let's stay close to the topic.
?.And it?s a bit off topic.....
HEY, at least the Outlaws are from Florida
That?s closer to the topic?isn?t it ? ! ?
-
Sorry, had to do something after burley's version of Kumbaya. :o
As for the song choice it was just a simple song to help during a complex time.
-
I just saw some sweet irony in a longing for all things American on an exotic gun site. Then, a call to imprison a freedom singer. One cool thing about Kumbaya is, you're always on key. 8) How cool is that?
Back OT, that Reuters artical seemed spot on after reading all the others. From the interviews with the neighbors to the discription of the penman ship.
-
...
I don't care if Zimmerman was following the kid. The LE came to a conclusion the night of the incident and that should have been enough.
I have always respected that "dead men tell no tales", it's worked well since inception :), but as far as the LEO's conclusion being enough, I have much less faith in the system and those that "protect" us. With the exception of the media fiasco, I have more faith in 12 people getting it more right than wrong than I do in just leaving it up to the LEOs, especially in a killing. Integrity, politics, patronage, money, bias, fatigue and laziness always factor into every decision we make on a daily basis.
-
...
I don't care if Zimmerman was following the kid. The LE came to a conclusion the night of the incident and that should have been enough.
I have always respected that "dead men tell no tales", it's worked well since inception :), but as far as the LEO's conclusion being enough, I have much less faith in the system and those that "protect" us. With the exception of the media fiasco, I have more faith in 12 people getting it more right than wrong than I do in just leaving it up to the LEOs, especially in a killing. Integrity, politics, patronage, money, bias, fatigue and laziness always factor into every decision we make on a daily basis.
No doubt that's a very valid thought. Sort of similar to the activities involved in CCW, of always being completely aware of your surroundings to prevent the worst from even happening in the first place.
-
30 blacks in a mob scene beat 2 white newspaper reporters, a man & woman: classified as 'Simple Assault' by police, their own newspaper doesn't even report it! Simple Assault? No HATE crime? Naw, perish the thought...
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/uncategorized/reporters-beaten-by-mob-of-blacks-and-their-newspaper-stayed-silent.html
May well be a foreshadowing, one of many, of what we will see in the near and ongoing future as blacks, angered and stirred up by Sharpton, Jackson, Wright & Obama 'Retaliate' against whites for the actions of an hispanic/black/white guy reportedly defending himself against a black man's assault?
-
Sorry, that report was incorrect !
That group of poor, under privileged, citizens of color, did NOT attack and / or assault the two white reporters?..NO ! !
They simply broke down and lashed out, after holding back the frustration from years of oppression at the hands of those rich, over baring, white racist bigots ! ! !
Just an observation
Where?s the ?Sarcasm Font? when you need one ? ! ?
-
Let's tone it down gents, keep it to the case at hand. I'm guilty too, but we do need to stay focused.
-
We've all being cheated, used, manipulated by this environment of wicked, selfish propaganda. Lies, frauds and misrepresentations undermine all that is good and hurt us all and every day. Who will answer the call? Who will step forward to take up the burden of changing this insanity, breaking the cycle and restoring goodness, decency and community among men in America? We as committed Americans loving this land of Freedom, individual Rights and Opportunity are the only ones who can do it, you and me, and the time is NOW!
We need to cause noisy but peaceful demonstrations in the streets of America, loud aggressive marches of 1,000's, even millions of American brothers and sisters of every race, color and origin side by side shouting, singing, waving banners of unity. Loudly marching with arms linked together in fellowship and a common bond: as men and women proclaiming character and decency, morals and ethics, as equal fellow Americans, brothers and sisters dedicated to that which is good!
Strip those lies naked in public, shove those words of wicked selfishness right back down the throats of frauds that utter them, prove them as the selfish liars they are! Take back and give back America to the People, the common and equal People. Show to all the world our wonderful land as the heart and soul of personal Rights, in Freedom for all. Shout out the exciting opportunity for spectacular personal achievement through our own honest labors, working together, side by side. Make known again the United States of America as that glorious shining jewel of man's greatest achievement in personal Freedom, unity of Fellowship, individual Rights and oneness of purpose that has ever been known in the history of mankind!
Our forefathers gave their possessions, their blood and their very lives to fight for this most wonderful land, to hand it down to us as their gift. It's time to shout out some thanks and stand and march in their place once again!
-
We've all being cheated, used, manipulated by this environment of wicked, selfish propaganda. Lies, frauds and misrepresentations undermine all that is good and hurt us all and every day. Who will answer the call? Who will step forward to take up the burden of changing this insanity, breaking the cycle and restoring goodness, decency and community among men in America? We as committed Americans loving this land of Freedom, individual Rights and Opportunity are the only ones who can do it, you and me, and the time is NOW!
We need to cause noisy but peaceful demonstrations in the streets of America, loud aggressive marches of 1,000's, even millions of American brothers and sisters of every race, color and origin side by side shouting, singing, waving banners of unity. Loudly marching with arms linked together in fellowship and a common bond: as men and women proclaiming character and decency, morals and ethics, as equal fellow Americans, brothers and sisters dedicated to that which is good!
Strip those lies naked in public, shove those words of wicked selfishness right back down the throats of frauds that utter them, prove them as the selfish liars they are! Take back and give back America to the People, the common and equal People. Show to all the world our wonderful land as the heart and soul of personal Rights, in Freedom for all. Shout out the exciting opportunity for spectacular personal achievement through our own honest labors, working together, side by side. Make known again the United States of America as that glorious shining jewel of man's greatest achievement in personal Freedom, unity of Fellowship, individual Rights and oneness of purpose that has ever been known in the history of mankind!
Our forefathers gave their possessions, their blood and their very lives to fight for this most wonderful land, to hand it down to us as their gift. It's time to shout out some thanks and stand and march in their place once again!
Is there an "Amen, Brothers!" to that ?
;D
-
Amen Brothers!
I'm just glad this has gone from a boil to a simmer. I did not see it reported here but earlier this week Mr. Zimmerman's lawyer requested a postponement.
Basically at this point Zimmerman has waived his right to a swift trial. I cannot help but wonder if this says anything about his legal team's hopes/intentions on a dismissal based on Mr. Zimmerman's self defense claim.
Of course I may be reading far too much into that bit of news.
-
I fear that if he gets a dismissal the race baiters will be out in full force once again. As much as I hate to say it Without a trial with real grownups running the show Zimmerman will be in more danger. If he is guilty t needs to be proven, If not then it needs to be proven as well. I had believed this was just the very reason stand your ground laws were enacted to protect shooter in LAWFUL engagements (still to be proven here.).
-
Well that is a real fear. And not just from the race baiters either.
I had not wanted to repeat this but a very close friend back home is an 8th grade math teacher in a in a very large city public school system. The word from his kids is there -will- be unrest if Zimmerman goes free. I cannot detail more as I really don't want to cause too much alarm.
-
Don?t worry about it Mike
The sad truth is;
The only thing that will keep the peace will be a guilty verdict
Even if he is acquitted by a jury of 12 people of color, the ?Race Baiters? will still scream foul
No matter how you cut it, this whole thing defines FUBAR
-
Medical report cooroborates Zimmerman's claims of self defense
http://news.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclusive-zimmerman-medical-report-shows-broken-204911351--abc-news-topstories.html
"...Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation."
He also had bruising to his upper lip.
-
Interesting that this article states that Zimmerman drew his Weapon, only after Martin seemed to make a move on it too
I guess if Martin would have been faster, and got to the Gun first, we?d never hear a single thing more about this
-
Oh we wold have heard something. The Anti's would be screaming how dangerous it is to carry a gun. See, a thug will take it from you and kill you with your own gun!
-
http://gma.yahoo.com/abc-news-exclusive-zimmerman-medical-report-shows-broken-204911351--abc-news-topstories.html
ABS news reports Mr Zimmermans' injuries are more severe than reported, and the only non firearm injury to Mr Martin is bloodied knuckles...
The judge who allowed this is a fool, and to place an entire nations laws supporting self defense on trial in the public's eye as well will most certainly backfire badly.
-
Zimmerman?s injuries and ?Stand Your Ground? under attack
New revelations about the injuries suffered by accused Florida gunman George Zimmerman may sway public opinion about what happened the night he fatally shot Trayvon Martin three months ago, but it may have effect on a battle the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is waging as a direct result of that confrontation.
http://www.examiner.com/article/zimmerman-s-injuries-and-stand-your-ground-under-attack
-
Seems that the Florida 'Stand your Ground' law doesn't carry much weight...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
Wonder how it will work out for Zimmerman?
-
The difference is she returned to get her keys and gun before firing a shot. If she were in fear for her life why would she return? At least that is my understanding of her situation.
Further, she fired into a wall not knowing what or who may be on the other side. That's just bad bad bad IMHO.
Although I agree 20 years is too harsh a sentence.
-
This afternoon NPR is reporting that Trevon Martin had marijuana in his blood and urine. They also reported the DA's office released photos of Zimmerman with a bloody nose.
-
Do you wonder if the prosecution is going to fold before they start?
-
I have a bad feeling that if the DA drops the charges, that?ll ignite a real $#!+ storm
If they go to trial, and acquit Zimmerman, we?ll see the same thing
It?s the Rodney King deal all over again
We?ll sit and watch, but I feel for anyone living in a large urban cities when the SHTF on this one
I lived through both LA Riots, and believe me, it was scary at times
-
It's now a no-win situation for everyone involved, which is you and me too! Thanks to irresponsible ego freaks, irresponsible opportunists, perennial racists, media with no conscience, political grand-standers and a whole bunch of people just looking for an excuse we're all in potential danger in the near future, regardless of race. We don't hear any of the loud mouths taking responsibility for their actions, to try and quiet the masses.
Fine time to look into concealed carry, home defense and whatever it takes to legally protect self and loved ones under all foreseeable circumstances.
Sick humor, but funny to see that the anti-gun baiters that poured gasoline on the flames will most likely end up causing far more people to purchase firearms and obtain CCW licenses in the near future! What a stark tragedy that it's fueled by something like this.
-
I have a bad feeling that if the DA drops the charges, that?ll ignite a real $#!+ storm
If they go to trial, and acquit Zimmerman, we?ll see the same thing
It?s the Rodney King deal all over again
I agree. I've already seen talk on Yahoo News by posters from Florida saying they would do just that. How much is keyboard commando, I don't know. What I do know is that the media is responsible if it does. They are the ones that have been dumping gasoline onto the flames all along.
-
Folks, I want to congratulate you all for a remarkably good discussion!
Lots of evidence here that gun people are not the boneheads that the real boneheads accuse us of being.
I think they should change the name of this forum to "Intelligent people with exotic guns"
;D
Standing ground against contrived injustice
Months have passed since the Trayvon Martin slaying but the past 48 hours have revealed stark new evidence in that case that just might have curtailed racial tension that spread from the Southeast to the Pacific Northwest had it been released earlier; evidence that may not exonerate accused murderer George Zimmerman, but at least adds a new perspective to what happened.
http://www.examiner.com/article/standing-ground-against-contrived-injustice
-
The hinge the prosecution is hanging it's hat on seems to be, "this wouldn't have happened if Mr Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle". True, BUT, according to the law, Mr Zimmerman was breaking no laws I am aware of by exiting his vehicle, and then apparently returning to it after he couldn't find the person he was looking for at that time. He may have broken Neighborhood Watch protocols by being armed, but I certainly would do the unpaid job unarmed, either. :)
I do look forward to seeing all the evidence presented to the jury and discover what, to the best extent we are able, happened that night.
-
The hinge the prosecution is hanging it's hat on seems to be, "this wouldn't have happened if Mr Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle".
Indeed, and a "But-If" clause?
Megyn Kelly Interviews Alan Dershowitz & Bernie Goldberg. Is There Such A Thing As The ?But-If? Clause?
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/18/megyn-kelly-interviews-alan-dershowitz-bernie-goldberg-is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-but-if-clause-video/
-
The hinge the prosecution is hanging it's hat on seems to be, "this wouldn't have happened if Mr Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle". True, BUT, according to the law, Mr Zimmerman was breaking no laws I am aware of by exiting his vehicle, and then apparently returning to it after he couldn't find the person he was looking for at that time. He may have broken Neighborhood Watch protocols by being armed, but I certainly would do the unpaid job unarmed, either. :)
I do look forward to seeing all the evidence presented to the jury and discover what, to the best extent we are able, happened that night.
One thing I notice that's underplayed is the fact that G.Z. had a cell phone on him and he called the police and told them what he saw and what he was doing. What did T. M. do with his cell phone? Why didn't HE call the cops?
-
That will be one of the gotcha questions to the prosecution.
-
Thanks, Dave, the 'Contrived justice' article really nails it down in black & white!
Interesting to see, or actually to not see, one single post anywhere I've looked that has smacked of white racism regardless of circumstances. Yes, plenty of angry black racism, after being stirred up into a frenzy by the usual cast of 'baiters'. Your mention of the forum responses here to the fiasco that has resulted are noteworthy as well. Facts is facts, whether the majority or anybody at all accepts them. The facts here are these:
Law abiding gun owners and CCW licensees are not a bunch of blood-crazed wackos just waiting for an opportunity to come out blasting in all directions, as often portrayed by lying media sources and lying anti-gunners. No, quite the contrary to that lie: they are as a whole the PRIMARY GROUP AGAINST UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE, PARTICULARLY GUN VIOLENCE!
Second, and equally important especially in today's America:
The second batch of 'fresh out of the racist oven' lies are continually disproven, where we can clearly see that this claimed white man's loathing and hatred for blacks is a lie from the pits of hell, told and retold by future residents of those same pits, the devil's own! There's no angry white man backlash, no threats, no vendettas, no get even, no white racist tirades, NO REPORTED WHITE VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACKS, no white racism public outcry, why? Because it's all a fraud, a sick twisted illusion cooked up by wicked men and women who seek to advance themselves and profit from their own racist hatred and selfish perversions!
Old racial wounds WERE healed, a common cause of American citizens of every race working together WAS progressing, the hatchet WAS buried. But that won't do for a certain crowd of demented liars who insist again and again on dragging their claws through the flesh of America to rip open old wounds, to cause pain and anguish, to draw blood and violence, to create chaos and uprisings. The simple reason for that, known by genuine Americans who care to know, is that this wicked group cannot survive without inventing an 'Oppressed peoples' group to fit in lockstep with Communist/Socialist propaganda to further their drive to overthrow America and enslave ALL of the American citizens of every race under Totalitarian Communist oppression!
That's the facts, we know it to be true. Would that the rest of America would figure it out in time and treat these traitors to a speedy trial and all that's coming to them as a result of same!
-
It's much easier to control a people if "assisting" them against a "common enemy".
-
I?ve wondered how far away from his vehicle GZ was when the ?fight? started
Who?s to say TM didn?t double back and attack him in or about his vehicle
And if it?s true the Zimerman didn?t draw his weapon until Martin made a move on it
I think that would make a big difference
-
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken
-
As it?s been said; "The job of Politicians and the Mainstream Media is to keep the pubic in fear"
Fear breads consumption
The more fear, the more the public will buy
Long live ?Fear and Consumption?
-
Thanks, Dave, the 'Contrived justice' article really nails it down in black & white!
Interesting to see, or actually to not see, one single post anywhere I've looked that has smacked of white racism regardless of circumstances. Yes, plenty of angry black racism, after being stirred up into a frenzy by the usual cast of 'baiters'. Your mention of the forum responses here to the fiasco that has resulted are noteworthy as well. Facts is facts, whether the majority or anybody at all accepts them. The facts here are these:
You are welcome!
In the past 48 hours, liberal law professor and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has demolished the Zimmerman prosecution.
After writing in the New York Daily News that murder charges should be dropped against George Zimmerman in the slaying of Trayvon Martin, liberal law professor and author Alan Dershowitz appeared on Fox News to reiterate his disgust for Zimmerman?s prosecution by Florida State Attorney Angela Corey.
http://www.examiner.com/article/dershowitz-demolishes-zimmerman-prosecution
-
I watched the video of the interview with Mr Dershowitz, where he proudly proclaims himself a liberal Democrat, and proceeds to show exactly how the prosecutor screwed up by the numbers. I think SOLELY BY THE EVIDENCE SHOWN IN THE MEDIA that Mr Zimmerman has an excellent chance of being exonerated...but what will happen with the assured civil rights case afterwards?
-
I watched the video of the interview with Mr Dershowitz, where he proudly proclaims himself a liberal Democrat, and proceeds to show exactly how the prosecutor screwed up by the numbers. I think SOLELY BY THE EVIDENCE SHOWN IN THE MEDIA that Mr Zimmerman has an excellent chance of being exonerated...but what will happen with the assured civil rights case afterwards?
Civil rights?
I think you mean the civil suit where it's all about the money...no?
-
I watched the video of the interview with Mr Dershowitz, where he proudly proclaims himself a liberal Democrat, and proceeds to show exactly how the prosecutor screwed up by the numbers. I think SOLELY BY THE EVIDENCE SHOWN IN THE MEDIA that Mr Zimmerman has an excellent chance of being exonerated...but what will happen with the assured civil rights case afterwards?
If he is exonerated there will be NO civil suit. Check Florida law. This is the main reason that so many take issue with the justifiable use of force law is the immunity from civil prosecution.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html)
Have a look at 776.032
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I would not be surprised if the US Justice Dept. tries to file some sort of 'case' against Mr. Zimmerman if he is not convicted or has charges dropped. Look at what they did after the Rodney King debacle.
-
Fed Justice will file, any effort to keep Fast and Furious out of the news by burying it with this stuff during an election year. Will it fly? Who knows, and if Florida law says no, then we run into a classic 10th Amendment standoff, could be VERY interesting!
-
Folks, I want to congratulate you all for a remarkably good discussion!
Lots of evidence here that gun people are not the boneheads that the real boneheads accuse us of being.
I think they should change the name of this forum to "Intelligent people with exotic guns"
;D
Standing ground against contrived injustice
Months have passed since the Trayvon Martin slaying but the past 48 hours have revealed stark new evidence in that case that just might have curtailed racial tension that spread from the Southeast to the Pacific Northwest had it been released earlier; evidence that may not exonerate accused murderer George Zimmerman, but at least adds a new perspective to what happened.
http://www.examiner.com/article/standing-ground-against-contrived-injustice
I liked the article Dave. The one point I sort of question is:
If that evidence convinces a jury that he acted in self-defense, then justice will have been served, whether some people accept it or otherwise.
I'm not entirely convinced that he should walk at this point. The question that still needs to be resolved is how the conflict was initiated. If the jury finds GZ initiated the conflict, I don't believe self defense is/should be a complete defense, in which case manslaughter charges would seem to be appropriate. However, if they find TM initiated the conflict, based on the injuries GZ sustained, I'd tend to agree with your statement that he should walk. In short, I don't think you can speak to which outcome is "just" until the facts are decided by the jury.
-
Range targets being sold with likeness of treyvon
Note this is a link to a news article covering the debate/controversy, not a link to go buy yourself one. I think it's kind of sick, selling them or using them.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/14/man-sells-out-of-trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets/
-
Range targets being sold with likeness of treyvon
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/14/man-sells-out-of-trayvon-martin-gun-range-targets/
I'm not sure how to take this
At first I thought it was a joke
Now I think the seller is just another parasite
No different than the people dealing in hate
-
I saw that elsewhere. Absolutely disgusting.
-
That's filth, remove it. >:( We certainly won't provide any "hits" for scum like that.
-
That's filth, remove it. >:( We certainly won't provide any "hits" for scum like that.
Agreed.
-
That's filth, remove it. >:( We certainly won't provide any "hits" for scum like that.
That wasn't a link to the seller, it was a link to a news article talking about it ... sold out in two days :(
I'm with the crowd that thinks it's in bad taste.
-
Maybe the race haters can track this guy down and put a bounty on him now and leave George alone for a while
-
The only targets of known humans I will shoot at are the vintage Ayatollah and Hussien ones. I had a Kim Jong Il target, but he expired before I could use it. My son has a favorite target on the back of his door for his Nerf gun - Hitler.
Guys like the referenced "entrepreneur" are begging for a beat down. I didn't like the targets made of the VT killer, Cho, either. Bad taste.
-
Bad taste.
Unfortunately to some people the only thing they seem to be able to taste is greed.
-
Hussien
Hey, I still have a vintage Saddam target from the first Gulf War taped to my closet door at home. I should really put it in a file cabinet or something...it's probably a collector's item by now!
-
Interesting info comes to light: George Zimmerman made serious complaints in the past RE: Sanford, Florida Police Dept.! Likely a contributing factor in a major shakeup, and related to police assault of a black man. Could it be that part of his problems today stem from that?
http://www.newsmax.com/US/NeighborhoodWatch-Zimmerman/2012/05/23/id/440094
-
I don't see how part of his problems would stem from that. The police did not bring the charges. A specially-appointed Florida prosecutor brought the indictment to a grand jury. If the police had a bias and wanted going to act on it, they would have had to do so a couple months back.
-
I think that may have been to point he was making.
If Zimmerman was a want to be cop why would he be bad mouthing the police in the defense of a black man/victim. Unless he is so smart he planned this killing long ago and was setting up the alibi.
I am fully expecting ABC news to post up on yahoo that Zimmerman has been found to be either the grand wizard of the clan or the one responsible for the sept. 11th attacks your pick.
-
I don't see how part of his problems would stem from that. The police did not bring the charges. A specially-appointed Florida prosecutor brought the indictment to a grand jury. If the police had a bias and wanted going to act on it, they would have had to do so a couple months back.
Need to do a little fact checking here. The prosecutor DID NOT take this case to a grand jury. The reason being, according to Alan Dersowitz (?) and other high power lawyers, she did not have enough evidence to obtain an indictment.
Joe
-
Indeed, as she said, "the search for justice for Trayvon" is her goal.
The search for the truth or justice for Zimmerman can be left to others.
-
Indeed, as she said, "the search for justice for Trayvon" is her goal.
The search for the truth or justice for Zimmerman can be left to others.
Yeah, that 'justice for Trayvon' does have a little bit of a vigilante ring to it. Funny she wouldn't say 'Justice for Trayvon and George'.
-
This is too much like the OJ trial and the Prosecutor?s Grandstanding to impress the Media
It?s not about the search for truth, but the posturing to epees the reverse racist public
No real difference than a lynch mob....Just painted a different shade of grey
-
Exactly, they learned the way of it with OJ.
-
I'm stunned to find so many members willing to throw GZ under the bus in the absence of any evidence justifying such action. I feel like I'm in a gun control forum.
-
I'm stunned to find so many members willing to throw GZ under the bus in the absence of any evidence justifying such action. I feel like I'm in a gun control forum.
Did you read all 16 pages of this discussion before you posted?
-
I read the first page and last two pages. I was shocked at the lack of knowledge displayed on p. 1, and did not see a lot of evidence of good research or wisdom on the last two pages. I'm sensing I stumbled into a MSNBC fan club.
-
I read the first page and last two pages. I was shocked at the lack of knowledge displayed on p. 1, and did not see a lot of evidence of good research or widom on the last two pages. I'm sensing I stumbled into a MSNBC fan club.
With all the pages here, I know that?s a lot of reading?.BUT
You really should have read the whole thread
There are more posts backing Zimmerman than not
A lot of info and Ideas battered back and forth
One may think of going back and reading everything then change the wording in your post?.seriously ! ! !
On a different note......
What I find interesting is that the Race Haters haven?t jumped on the ?Face Eater? train
This last weekend, a Miami COP shot and killed a ?Black? Homeless man
OH, did I forget to mention, that the man was eating the face off of another (White) homeless guy?.
YES, I said ?EATING THE FACE OFF OF ANOTHER MAN?
Laterally biting and tearing pieces of flesh from the other man?s face
It took three shots to stop and finally kill the assailant
Now, my question is this:
Would it have been considered excessive force if the victim of the attack would have pulled a Pistol and shot his attacker (once in the chest) to stop the attack, since the attacker had NO weapon ? ! ?
-
Den,
Thanks for the recommendation of revising my posts -- I misspelled wisdom.
I'm comfortable having made my judgment on the basis of the three pages I read. I disclosed the extent of my reading and you and others are free to make judgments about my behavior. I do take some comfort from you informing me that there are more posts in this thread that support GZ than those that villify him.
I would hope that the vast majority of responsible gun owners would have the wisdom to be highly skeptical of any so-called news floated from one of the liberal, anti-gun, propaganda organs. And, I would hope the vast majority of responsible gun owners would not be so quick to toss someone under the bus when all available credible information points to a justifiable use of force. GZ was far more restrained than I would have been. I wouldn't have called for help for more than 40 s before drawing my gun. I would not have given my assailant the chance to bash my head onto the pavement more than once. And, I would have shot more than once.
I wasn't aware that the face-eater event had a racial factor. I believe in a color-blind society. Thus, to me, TM's blackness and GZ's blackness are not an issue. Every person has a right to defend himself.
-
I'm glad I do not have you on a jury if you are going to make decisions based on a tiny selection of the information offered and then stand by your small sampling without bothering to read the rest as it has been suggested.
-
Skookum,
The info that you read was back from March. Most of what was said back then was based on what limited information the news media had leaked at the time. In all honesty, based on the info available at the time...I personally didn't think George was in the right. Now that a few months have gone by and more information has come to light...I am positive he was.
Gun rights or not, two months ago I thought he broke the law. Now I don't think he did.
-
I'm probably late to give my opinion, but I think it is common sense to conclude that if someone physically lays hands on you and starts bashing your head into the pavement, you should be allowed to shoot the attacker with a licensed gun or bash his head with an unlicensed rock. I do not see why, assuming that is what happened; there is any discussion. Different facts, different conclusion, of course.
Joe
-
I'm probably late to give my opinion, but I think it is common sense to conclude that if someone physically lays hands on you and starts bashing your head into the pavement, you should be allowed to shoot the attacker with a licensed gun or bash his head with an unlicensed rock. I do not see why, assuming that is what happened; there is any discussion. Different facts, different conclusion, of course.
Joe
Yeah, of course we have to consider GZ was stalking him.
What would you expect your wife of daughters reaction to be if some creepy looking dude was following them around in a truck creeping about and then hopping out of the truck and following her around ... she'd probably be pretty amped up for flight/fight.
Of course I don't know all the facts and have no opinion who is guilty/not guilty. But when you're creeping around stalking somebody, kind of hard to blame them for maybe thinking you're a BG weirdo and reacting in a defensive manner.
-
No personal attacks here, please. Keep the discussion to the facts at hand.
-
Yeah, of course we have to consider GZ was stalking him.
What would you expect your wife of daughters reaction to be if some creepy looking dude was following them around in a truck creeping about and then hopping out of the truck and following her around ... she'd probably be pretty amped up for flight/fight.
Of course I don't know all the facts and have no opinion who is guilty/not guilty. But when :-[, kind of hard to blame them for maybe thinking you're a BG weirdo and reacting in a defensive manner.
That's just what turned many people against George Zimmerman. It comes on top of another member tossing out insults before reading what we've said, and even after his refusing to go and read what has been said in order to judge fairly! Yeah, just grab those TV sound bites, it will tell you all you want to know allright. That is, if that's all you want to know to guide your life's decisions.
Your choice of words isn't accidental, I know that. "...have to consider GZ was stalking him..." No, as a matter of FACT, we don't! Stalking is a crime. Stalking is following someone with a prior intent to do them harm at your opportunity. Stalking paints a picture of a man with evil intent. Stalking leans way over toward imagining it was premeditated murder. Your choice of words.
Sounds like more character assassination here? "...creepy looking dude was following them around in a truck creeping about and then hopping out of the truck and following her around..."
What part of official testimony & evidence has portrayed or described George Zimmerman as 'creepy looking'?? What evidence says he was 'creeping about'??? Where did you find evidence that he was '...hopping... out of the truck'??
In fact, based on evidence, it was Trayvon Martin who was in a neighborhood he didn't belong in, and was from evidence acting in a suspicious manner. Children, as media insists on describing this person who was a couple of months from legal manhood, should be home with their mommy and daddy. This sweet young innocent child was out roaming a neighborhood at night, yes roaming as in walking to and fro in a place he did not belong, in that gated private community while loaded out on weed.
He was doing so because he had gotten kicked out of school, and apparently out of his house too, temporarily living with another parent following the school 'trouble', which certainly wasn't his first. You know, the school trouble with jewelry in his possession which didn't belong to him? The school trouble over carrying drugs and having possesion while he was at school? Seems the drug use was common for him because according to Official Evidence of Coroner's Toxicology Report he was under the influence of drugs, loaded, the night he was out wandering around munching Skittles in a neighborhood he didn't live in or actually belong in, before he attacked a man.
Zimmerman broke no law following and first contacted the police, local law enforcement, before doing so! He stayed on the phone with Law Enforcement while he went about his community duties as a Neighborhood Watch Volunteer. Evidence says he got attacked, physically assaulted in a way that could swiftly kill him, and that he drew and shot as a result.
That is according to evidence, not lying media spin, misrepresentation and phony descriptions.
-
I'm glad I do not have you on a jury if you are going to make decisions based on a tiny selection of the information offered and then stand by your small sampling without bothering to read the rest as it has been suggested.
This isn't a court of law. And, sampling is used in daily life; often times the results of sampling are used in a court of law.
Now, if you wish to gripe about the quality of my sample, you would have yourself a valid argument.
-
Skookum,
The info that you read was back from March. Most of what was said back then was based on what limited information the news media had leaked at the time. In all honesty, based on the info available at the time...I personally didn't think George was in the right. Now that a few months have gone by and more information has come to light...I am positive he was.
Gun rights or not, two months ago I thought he broke the law. Now I don't think he did.
jlj,
When this story started to become of national and international importance, I started researching it. The line coming out of the media just didn't make sense -- what sane person calls the police to his location right before committing a crime?
Nearly a week prior to the article was published that kicked off this thread the recording of GZ's call to the police was uploaded to You Tube. Listen to it and you learn that the police dispatcher did not advise GZ not to pursue TM, you learn that GZ was not in pursuit of TM. The dispatcher expressed a non-need. Further research would have enlightened the writer about a dispatcher having no lawful authority to issue any orders in FL. Thus, even if the dispatcher would have offered advice or attempted to make an order, it would be pretty much irrelevant.
Given the role that race has taken in this case, the writer of the article that kicked off this thread was remiss in failing to report that GZ is black.
It appears that this isn't the only gun forum that jumped to an initial opinion of GZ being somehow in the wrong. The author of the article cites two others that did so.
Just my opinion, but if one fancies himself to be a responsible gun owner who values his gun rights, he better be tuned in to a more reliable news source than the alphabet, anti-gun, propaganda networks. Everyone on this and all other gun fora obviously has access to the internet, so there is no excuse for not seeking and finding less biased sources of information. I also think anyone who regards himself as responsible enough to carry a weapon should take on the responsibility to think logically about important matters such as the GZ case. For example, the article's conclusion -- that we shouldn't villify the FL gun laws, but instead should villify the man who, from all available evidence, exercised his right to self defense, is nothing other than a flanking attack on FL's gun laws.
-
Yeah, of course we have to consider GZ was stalking him.
1. Please present your evidence that GZ was stalking TM. Be sure your evidence conforms to the applicable legal definition of stalking.
2. Please explain what law gives anyone being "stalked" (or followed) the right to commit a felonious assault on the purported "stalker" (or follower).
3. Please explain why you are implying that GZ looks or looked "creepy."
I got news for you -- I have the right to follow you whenever or wherever I want, as long as you are on public property (or on the common grounds of my homeowners' association), unless and until you get a restraining order to prevent me from doing so. Even with such an order in hand you do not have the right to commit a felonious assault on me just because I violate the order and follow you. TM -- a drug-peddling thug who was on drugs at the time -- was dumb enough to bring his fists to a gunfight, and he earned a Darwin Award. The take-home lesson should be that other thugs need to be careful about assaulting someone in all states except IL.
-
It comes on top of another member tossing out insults before reading what we've said, and even after his refusing to go and read what has been said in order to judge fairly!
May I ask what insults I am being accused of tossing out?
I didn't need to read 16 pages to be shocked at what I saw on p. 1, p. 15, and p. 16 -- and what I continue to see on p. 17. Judging by the remaining content in your post above, you and I are in violent agreement.
We each have a choice -- to be a recepticle for the outputs of the propaganda organs, or to be informed citizens.
By the way, very good argument on your part in response to the uninformed claim of stalking. Bravo!
-
Gentlemen and ladies, if this thread gets any hotter, we'll shut it down and wait for the jury trial to show what the answers really are. Please be civil.
-
I heard yesterday the case won't go to trial until sometime in 2013.
-
That's entirely possible.
-
There is an old moral to these events of which some will never acknowledge regardless of the outcome of a trial.......never bring skittles to a gun fight.
-
No problem Skookum, I believe we are in agreement on the issues! I just didn't like the implication that most everyone was down on Zimmerman when so many had fought verbally here for his cause.
Regarding Zimmerman just getting arrested and jailed instead of being out on bail, I see them REALLY grasping at any straws to try for a conviction! They know they've acted entirely improperly since or including appointing a Special Prosecutor and know that they simply don't have a case against him, not even a weak one!
That money that was donated into a fund was for Geroge Zimmerman's Legal Defense, so that he could fight the charges. Many people that donated are fellow CCW licensed carry gunowners, so they also saw it as fighting for their own rights. I for one would be highly upset if monies for LEGAL DEFENSE were instead tossed down to throw his bail, with no money then left for a Legal Defense! The money collected was specifically for his legal defense, not his bail. Also as I understand it, George Zimmerman didn't set up the fund, didn't manage the fund and had no control over it to choose how or when it was used!
On top of that the judge took plenty of latitude with character assassination of Zimmerman, outright insults, proving he's unfit to serve as an impartial judge. So the Special Prosecutor is bogus, the Revocation of Bail is bogus, the Judge's insults are bogus and the Judge himself proved himself to be bogus and unfit to serve regarding impartiality. I see a mistrial in the future and a miscarriage of Justice in the present.
-
No problem Skookum, I believe we are in agreement on the issues! I just didn't like the implication that most everyone was down on Zimmerman when so many had fought verbally here for his cause.
Regarding Zimmerman just getting arrested and jailed instead of being out on bail, I see them REALLY grasping at any straws to try for a conviction! They know they've acted entirely improperly since or including appointing a Special Prosecutor and know that they simply don't have a case against him, not even a weak one!
That money that was donated into a fund was for Geroge Zimmerman's Legal Defense, so that he could fight the charges. Many people that donated are fellow CCW licensed carry gunowners, so they also saw it as fighting for their own rights. I for one would be highly upset if monies for LEGAL DEFENSE were instead tossed down to throw his bail, with no money then left for a Legal Defense! The money collected was specifically for his legal defense, not his bail. Also as I understand it, George Zimmerman didn't set up the fund, didn't manage the fund and had no control over it to choose how or when it was used!
On top of that the judge took plenty of latitude with character assassination of Zimmerman, outright insults, proving he's unfit to serve as an impartial judge. So the Special Prosecutor is bogus, the Revocation of Bail is bogus, the Judge's insults are bogus and the Judge himself proved himself to be bogus and unfit to serve regarding impartiality. I see a mistrial in the future and a miscarriage of Justice in the present.
+1
-
Shookum:
I apologize if my post seemed to be an insult, I honestly didn?t mean it that way
I simply meant that when you (originally) stated the lack of support for George, it was obvious you didn?t read enough of the thread to find it
I do see that you did go back and remove that part of your original post
Also, you are correct in the fact that too many people blindly take the mainstream (mostly liberal) media as truth, without question
-
Spirit1,
I must admit to not being up to speed on GZ's bond revocation. I look forward to he or his attorney explaining the concerns at a new bond hearing. If he and his wife were using code to discuss the donated funds while he was in custody, that wasn't bright. You make a great argument for the uee of the funds being limited to his defense, rather than his bail. But, I'm guessing the validity of that argument depends on how the fund was set up and handled.
-
Spirit1,
I must admit to not being up to speed on GZ's bond revocation. I look forward to he or his attorney explaining the concerns at a new bond hearing. If he and his wife were using code to discuss the donated funds while he was in custody, that wasn't bright. You make a great argument for the uee of the funds being limited to his defense, rather than his bail. But, I'm guessing the validity of that argument depends on how the fund was set up and handled.
Yeah, now I'm pretty confused on all that too, Skookum. Not sure who is doing what, but saw that his bond revocation is now up for review, next month I believe. I'm convinced that even at the very best and after a lot of searching etc. we're still only seeing the tip of the iceberg. It will be real nice for all concerned parties if that iceberg finally melts.
I imagine Zimmerman will end up facing a civil suit over this, soon as the smoke clears on official charges, just sorta smells that way...
-
No problem Skookum, I believe we are in agreement on the issues! I just didn't like the implication that most everyone was down on Zimmerman when so many had fought verbally here for his cause.
Regarding Zimmerman just getting arrested and jailed instead of being out on bail, I see them REALLY grasping at any straws to try for a conviction! They know they've acted entirely improperly since or including appointing a Special Prosecutor and know that they simply don't have a case against him, not even a weak one!
That money that was donated into a fund was for Geroge Zimmerman's Legal Defense, so that he could fight the charges. Many people that donated are fellow CCW licensed carry gunowners, so they also saw it as fighting for their own rights. I for one would be highly upset if monies for LEGAL DEFENSE were instead tossed down to throw his bail, with no money then left for a Legal Defense! The money collected was specifically for his legal defense, not his bail. Also as I understand it, George Zimmerman didn't set up the fund, didn't manage the fund and had no control over it to choose how or when it was used!
On top of that the judge took plenty of latitude with character assassination of Zimmerman, outright insults, proving he's unfit to serve as an impartial judge. So the Special Prosecutor is bogus, the Revocation of Bail is bogus, the Judge's insults are bogus and the Judge himself proved himself to be bogus and unfit to serve regarding impartiality. I see a mistrial in the future and a miscarriage of Justice in the present.
Frankly, it doesn't matter why the money was donated. It was given to GZ and thus it was relevant to his bail. If GZ has money and lies to the judge about it at a bail hearing, the judge can and should revoke his bail. No offense intended, but I think the situation "as you understand it" is flat out wrong. This money was in GZ's bank account and later moved (by his wife, who also lied about it) to a safety deposit box. She withdrew the money in a series of small sums (I would assume to avoid detection) and also funneled almost 50 grand of it off to GZ's sister. In short, it's a completely sketchy affair on GZ's part and I don't see anything wrong with the judge's actions.
I personally don't have any stake in this nor am I entirely sympathetic to one side or the other. I would just be careful about white knighting GZ and blaming anything that goes wrong on the "liberal media."
Regarding Zimmerman just getting arrested and jailed instead of being out on bail, I see them REALLY grasping at any straws to try for a conviction! They know they've acted entirely improperly since or including appointing a Special Prosecutor and know that they simply don't have a case against him, not even a weak one!
I'm not entirely sure that's true. I'd say there is enough evidence out there that a jury could go either way on this. And GZ isn't helping his case by acting like an idiot and lying at his bail hearing. He basically just handed the prosecutor some lovely evidence on a silver platter for impeaching any testimony given by himself or his wife.
My own $0.02, I'm not entirely sympathetic to either side in this case, but I personally wish we didn't have GZ representing CCW owners.
-
By now, I think it will be near impossible to find twelve people that haven?t heard something about and/or hasn?t already formed some kind of an opinion on this case
I truly believe, a Fair Trial in either direction is getting closer and closer to impossible
-
Frankly, it doesn't matter why the money was donated. It was given to GZ and thus it was relevant to his bail. If GZ has money and lies to the judge about it at a bail hearing, the judge can and should revoke his bail. No offense intended, but I think the situation "as you understand it" is flat out wrong. This money was in GZ's bank account and later moved (by his wife, who also lied about it) to a safety deposit box. She withdrew the money in a series of small sums (I would assume to avoid detection) and also funneled almost 50 grand of it off to GZ's sister. In short, it's a completely sketchy affair on GZ's part and I don't see anything wrong with the judge's actions.
This is too rational for most to grasp........
-
Today a judge in Florida set George Zimmerman's bail at 1 Million dollars. The judge declared GZ a flight risk.
No word if GZ can actually make bail.
-
Flight risk? Are you kidding me? Judge isn't exercising much in the way of good judgement but hey, we got politics to consider here, right?
If he did make bail it would wipe out the entire fund that was set up for his legal defense and the judge knows it, that's why he set it so high. Same as refusing him the possibility of bail, and again, the judge knows it.
"Sure, I'll let you out on bail, as long as you give me all the money collected for your legal defense fund and then find somebody else to handle your case pro-bono after your lawyer quits."
Forum decency standards prevent me from further comment.
-
He made bail today.
However I can see the judge doing something like this. Afterall GZ honked the judge off with his failure to report that 100K$ fund.
-
Flight risk? Are you kidding me? Judge isn't exercising much in the way of good judgement but hey, we got politics to consider here, right?
If he did make bail it would wipe out the entire fund that was set up for his legal defense and the judge knows it, that's why he set it so high. Same as refusing him the possibility of bail, and again, the judge knows it.
"Sure, I'll let you out on bail, as long as you give me all the money collected for your legal defense fund and then find somebody else to handle your case pro-bono after your lawyer quits."
Forum decency standards prevent me from further comment.
GZ and his wife lied (under oath) to the judge's face. I don't blame the judge one little bit for erring on the side of caution. Also, GZ already posted bail, so the notion that the judge is making this impossibly hard and denying GZ the possibility of bail is nonsense.
Please don't try and spin this as some judge conspiring to deny GZ due process - GZ lied to the judge about his finances, the judge set a higher bail, and GZ posted the higher bail within hours. Other than GZ lying under oath, everything else about this sounds normal (and fair) to me.
-
He made bail today.
However I can see the judge doing something like this. Afterall GZ honked the judge off with his failure to report that 100K$ fund.
The judge probably just got mad because he set an astronomical bail he thought was impossible for GZ to meet, then the donations added up. Even with a $1m bail he is walking free for a little while. Judges, when they feel they need to please someone, will do things like set ridiculous bail knowing the defendant won't be able to afford it. So, they can cross bail off the list like, "hey, I offered bail, if he can't make it, tough crap".
I have a friend who is currently accused of something he probably didn't do. The facts are so bad against him and so unreliable, the state changed courts twice already because the first 2 judges were going to throw out the case for lack of merit (i.e. they know bs when they see it). Finally they got a judge that was ready to play ball and the DA tripled his bail to make it impossible for him to bail out. Sad story, been in prison since last Thanksgiving and is so poor he is virtually paralyzed.
-
Flight risk? Are you kidding me? Judge isn't exercising much in the way of good judgement but hey, we got politics to consider here, right?
If he did make bail it would wipe out the entire fund that was set up for his legal defense and the judge knows it, that's why he set it so high. Same as refusing him the possibility of bail, and again, the judge knows it.
"Sure, I'll let you out on bail, as long as you give me all the money collected for your legal defense fund and then find somebody else to handle your case pro-bono after your lawyer quits."
Forum decency standards prevent me from further comment.
GZ and his wife lied (under oath) to the judge's face. I don't blame the judge one little bit for erring on the side of caution. Also, GZ already posted bail, so the notion that the judge is making this impossibly hard and denying GZ the possibility of bail is nonsense.
Please don't try and spin this as some judge conspiring to deny GZ due process - GZ lied to the judge about his finances, the judge set a higher bail, and GZ posted the higher bail within hours. Other than GZ lying under oath, everything else about this sounds normal (and fair) to me.
No, I think you're missing it again. When this was first brought up about Zimmermans lying I pointed out that the Defense Fund wasn't ever collected as the Bail Fund, obviously a huge difference between the two! I also pointed out that if the DEFENSE FUND was instead used to make bail that it would in essence defraud all the people that contributed to his defense.
People had all sorts of motives in donating to his DEFENSE Fund. Some wanted better conditions in their home states based on a positive verdict for Zimmerman, others wanted to make a statement of belief, others felt an innocent man had been wronged and wanted to help him defend himself etc. All of the possible reasons for donating to Zimmerman's DEFENSE Fund are directly related to the arguing of the case in court and to Zimmerman having adequate financing to successfully uphold his DEFENSE in the case.
Just what part of that DEFENSE Fund, according to you, was ever earmarked or described or intended as his BAIL Fund when it was collected, long before this whole bail fiasco was dreamed up long after the fact?
The judge has now effectively forced Zimmermans into a fraudulent act. It's called 'Bait & Switch'. Zimmerman's lawyer collected money for the single and specific purpose of Zimmerman's Legal Defense, which because of pressure and tactics employed by the judge now becomes Bait, because it's now used to post Bond which is the Switch!
Zimmerman's spoke truthfully about not having sufficient funds for Bail, because they rightly identified or saw the money collected for Legal Defense as indeed being money collected for Legal Defense, NOT BAIL! That's about as basic as it gets, no spin, no one-sided opinion, no prejudice. A Defense Fund is NOT a Bail Fund, real simple.
-
Amazing.........
HTC Vision on Tapatalk 2
-
Regardless what the funds were intended for the simple truth is Z lied to the judge at his first bail hearing.
-
He turned in one passport when he had two. Of course that makes him a flight risk!
-
Please, believe me, I'm not at all suggesting that George Zimmerman is up for sainthood! I don't even know if I like the guy at all, not knowing him at all. I thought I saw mention of some stuff in his past that was sort of unsavory? Not sure here.
I do know a few things: he's a well established local family man, given a position of responsibility by local citizens in the local community as I understand it. He was well known to law enforcement and worked with them on a regular basis. He has no serious criminal record that I know of. There's nothing outstanding, that I know of, in his character or past marking him as a flight risk. Whatever normal operating procedures are in place that apply to the entire general population should apply to him.
I can't see why nobody agrees with the viewpoint, or better said, the fact that his Defense Fund was never established or intended or made available or advertised beforehand as being his BAIL FUND.
What if somebody advertised on the internet that they were in desparate need of housing and established the 'Zimmerman Housing Fund' advertised as being intended to save them from homelessness. Then after the money is collected for a house the named Zimmerman instead uses it as a lavish vacation fund to travel the world and celebrate life and freedom. Ethical? Morally acceptable? Legal? Fraudulent? How would you feel if you had donated?
What if a sitting judge demanded that they use the housing fund for a vacation fund: is that any more ethical, legal, morally acceptable or un-fraudulent just because a judge ordered it? To my way of thinking it just makes the judge guilty of forcing someone into a knowingly fraudulent act. Seems to me that everybody that donated to the Zimmerman Defense Fund just got defrauded, by court order.
-
Flight risk? Are you kidding me? Judge isn't exercising much in the way of good judgement but hey, we got politics to consider here, right?
If he did make bail it would wipe out the entire fund that was set up for his legal defense and the judge knows it, that's why he set it so high. Same as refusing him the possibility of bail, and again, the judge knows it.
"Sure, I'll let you out on bail, as long as you give me all the money collected for your legal defense fund and then find somebody else to handle your case pro-bono after your lawyer quits."
Forum decency standards prevent me from further comment.
GZ and his wife lied (under oath) to the judge's face. I don't blame the judge one little bit for erring on the side of caution. Also, GZ already posted bail, so the notion that the judge is making this impossibly hard and denying GZ the possibility of bail is nonsense.
Please don't try and spin this as some judge conspiring to deny GZ due process - GZ lied to the judge about his finances, the judge set a higher bail, and GZ posted the higher bail within hours. Other than GZ lying under oath, everything else about this sounds normal (and fair) to me.
No, I think you're missing it again. When this was first brought up about Zimmermans lying I pointed out that the Defense Fund wasn't ever collected as the Bail Fund, obviously a huge difference between the two! I also pointed out that if the DEFENSE FUND was instead used to make bail that it would in essence defraud all the people that contributed to his defense.
People had all sorts of motives in donating to his DEFENSE Fund. Some wanted better conditions in their home states based on a positive verdict for Zimmerman, others wanted to make a statement of belief, others felt an innocent man had been wronged and wanted to help him defend himself etc. All of the possible reasons for donating to Zimmerman's DEFENSE Fund are directly related to the arguing of the case in court and to Zimmerman having adequate financing to successfully uphold his DEFENSE in the case.
Just what part of that DEFENSE Fund, according to you, was ever earmarked or described or intended as his BAIL Fund when it was collected, long before this whole bail fiasco was dreamed up long after the fact?
The judge has now effectively forced Zimmermans into a fraudulent act. It's called 'Bait & Switch'. Zimmerman's lawyer collected money for the single and specific purpose of Zimmerman's Legal Defense, which because of pressure and tactics employed by the judge now becomes Bait, because it's now used to post Bond which is the Switch!
Zimmerman's spoke truthfully about not having sufficient funds for Bail, because they rightly identified or saw the money collected for Legal Defense as indeed being money collected for Legal Defense, NOT BAIL! That's about as basic as it gets, no spin, no one-sided opinion, no prejudice. A Defense Fund is NOT a Bail Fund, real simple.
The problem is your view on GZ's monetary situation is inconsistent with the current law. If I give you $5 for your birthday and tell you to only spend it on ammo for a CZ, you are well within your legal right to go out and buy a sandwich with that $5. I can't then turn around and take any course of action against you legally, even though you spent the money I gave you against my wishes. While there are a few legal constructs (such as trusts) that could potentially place this money outside of bail territory, GZ should still disclose it when asked point blank at the bail hearing and then his attorney can point out why that money is off limits for bail purposes. However, they didn't use any such fund or setup any sort of separate organization to manage the funds - they deposited it in their personal bank accounts, moved it around in a shady fashion prior to the bail hearings and lied to the court's face during the bail hearing. This money was not tied up in any way such that it couldn't be used for bail. It was given directly to GZ, placed in their personal bank accounts, and was 100% relevant to the question of bail. Any intentions of the donors simply are irrelevant and suggesting that it was okay to lie to the court because of the intentions of the donors is just nonsense.
-
I see some parts of the point you want to make but can't agree with all of it. Don't want to get in a war here so for me I'm done with it.
-
I just read that today, the FBI released they report into their investigation of George Zimmerman, his background and possible motive(s) in the Trayvon Martin case
The report stated that the FBI found absolutely NO proof that Zimmerman?s act was racially motivated, but more of a probable need for the admiration of his peers
From what they found, there was no malice intended at all
-
And the DA released more info about this case. None of it was flattering to GZ.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fbi-interviews-crime-scene-photos-other-evidence-released-154730328.html
-
And the DA released more info about this case. None of it was flattering to GZ.
Yeah, I can see how everyone should believe (without a shadow of a doubt) a guy that ?Swears on a Stack of Bibles !?
And I?d say we all need to be investigated because (as far as I?m concerned) ?I need more Guns !?
-
And the DA released more info about this case. None of it was flattering to GZ.
Yeah, I can see how everyone should believe (without a shadow of a doubt) a guy that ?Swears on a Stack of Bibles !?
And I?d say we all need to be investigated because (as far as I?m concerned) ?I need more Guns !?
The sarcasm is a bit unnecessary. The more you deal with law, particularly courtroom litigation, the more you will realize that evidence is merely something to be evaluated and not something you should take so personally. Nothing in the article indicated that a jury should believe beyond a reasonable doubt the 'cousin' who said the voice was TM's. If you ask me, the article is neither flattering nor unflattering - it's just a high-level overview of several witness' potential testimony. Just because an article contains some facts that are unflattering doesn't mean you should resent it or get upset about it. Just accept it for what it is - random highlights of witness testimony, from witnesses that can be impeached or otherwise discredited at trial, that ultimately need to be evaluated by a jury.
-
The news report I heard on the radio was -very- unflattering.
-
The general main stream media is against GZ and I expect that most of their reporting will unflattering or negative against GM. You don't see them reporting on the negative aspects of Travons past. The general mainstream media has their antigun agenda and will do anything to make gun incidents look negative.
-
The general main stream media is against GZ and I expect that most of their reporting will unflattering or negative against GM. You don't see them reporting on the negative aspects of Travons past. The general mainstream media has their antigun agenda and will do anything to make gun incidents look negative.
There's a lot of truth in that, although I'm skeptical that the negative aspects of Travon's past are even going to get admitted into evidence at trial (in which case it's arguably pointless to cover them in news articles). Unless Florida has some evidence laws that differ greatly from the model rules, I would imagine TM's weed charges and other past events will stay out.
Frankly, other than the bail issues (which GZ brought upon himself), I haven't heard anything new in this case and I doubt we will until the trial is underway. Honestly, given that there were no witnesses that saw how the encounter started and how it escalated, a lot of this is going to come down to which testimony the jury believes. GZ will give his account and argue that it was his voice on the 911 recording, the prosecution will argue it was TM's voice, and it will come down to which witnesses the jury believes. That's why I think it was so incredibly stupid for GZ and his wife to lie to the judge at the bail hearing. The prosecution is going to throw that back in their faces and use it to impeach their credibility (I think pretty effectively) at trial, and at the end of the day his greed may end up costing him years of his personal freedom.
-
I?ve tried to stay out of the question of ?The Bail? issue
I just can't bite my lip any longer
When asked under oath if George Zimmerman has X dollars for bail, he answered ?NO?
That was a truthful answer
George Zimmerman did not have X dollars for bail
There is/was a fund set-up for his DEFENSE
Now everyone is arguing that this was his money to use as he saw fit?.NO, not ethically !
Here are a couple simple (hypothetic) examples
A fund is set-up to help bury Trayvon Martin
It collects tens of thousands of dollars
The Martins take a thousand bucks, have the kid cremated on the cheap and then vacation in the Bahamas with the rest of the money
OR?.
Money is donated to help rebuild a small Church ravaged by a wild fire
The Pastor takes the funds and remodels the Kitchen and Bathroom at the Parish House instead
OR........
Moneys are earmarked to feed one thousand homeless people, but the Fund Organizers first spend a majority of the cash (enough to feed another fifteen hundred people) and throw a lavish banquet for the Fund Raisers
How would that fly ?
It may be legal, but it?s not ethical
So think on this?.Maybe George answered the question "NO", because he is actually an ethical man?.HE DID NOT HAVE MONEY FOR BAIL, he had money for his defense !
And that?s the point GZ?s lawyer was trying to make to that ?Judge? (and I use THAT term loosely)
Everyone who touches this case is looking to make a name for themselves
It?s the OJ ordeal all over again
-
And that?s the point GZ?s lawyer was trying to make to that ?Judge? (and I use THAT term loosely)
And now he wants another one.
The ex-neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing Trayvon Martin asked for a new judge Friday, claiming the current one is biased because he said George Zimmerman had "flaunted the system."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/13/george-zimmerman-asks-for-new-judge-again/
-
I do believe the reporter needs to go back to English 101...sounds like the word should be "flouted", not "flaunted".
-
I?ve tried to stay out of the question of ?The Bail? issue
I just can't bite my lip any longer
When asked under oath if George Zimmerman has X dollars for bail, he answered ?NO?
That was a truthful answer
George Zimmerman did not have X dollars for bail
There is/was a fund set-up for his DEFENSE
Now everyone is arguing that this was his money to use as he saw fit?.NO, not ethically !
Here are a couple simple (hypothetic) examples
A fund is set-up to help bury Trayvon Martin
It collects tens of thousands of dollars
The Martins take a thousand bucks, have the kid cremated on the cheap and then vacation in the Bahamas with the rest of the money
OR?.
Money is donated to help rebuild a small Church ravaged by a wild fire
The Pastor takes the funds and remodels the Kitchen and Bathroom at the Parish House instead
OR........
Moneys are earmarked to feed one thousand homeless people, but the Fund Organizers first spend a majority of the cash (enough to feed another fifteen hundred people) and throw a lavish banquet for the Fund Raisers
How would that fly ?
It may be legal, but it?s not ethical
So think on this?.Maybe George answered the question "NO", because he is actually an ethical man?.HE DID NOT HAVE MONEY FOR BAIL, he had money for his defense !
And that?s the point GZ?s lawyer was trying to make to that ?Judge? (and I use THAT term loosely)
Everyone who touches this case is looking to make a name for themselves
It?s the OJ ordeal all over again
If you want to make a moral argument for not tying this money up with a bail bondsman (not sure why that matters - obviously he has and can afford an attorney and has ample legal defense, but regardless...) - tell the judge that you have X dollars but that it was donated for purposes of legal defense and that make the argument that it shouldn't considered for bail purposes. I personally find that viewpoint to be a bit naive and frankly inconsistent with the current state of the law, and I doubt it would fly in a bail hearing, but even if that argument is 100% right, the moral way for GZ to resolve the issue is to be truthful about the funds and to make that argument to the judge during the bail hearing.
Instead, GZ chose to lie to the judge about his funds, to have his wife move the funds from his personal checking account to another account with multiple <$10,000 withdrawals, and generally acted scummy when it came to the entire issue. You can bash the judge if you want, but he was 110% correct on this issue.
Remember also that instead of giving a bail bondsman $100,000-150,000 after the judge increased the bail to $1,000,000, GZ could have simply stayed in jail. Understand that the legal system does not REQUIRE him to make bail. It gives him the option to post bail or stay in jail. As such, GZ first lied about his resources, and then he purposefully chose to give money donated to his "legal defense fund" to a bail bondsman, at which point the bail bondsman posted the $1,000,000 bail on his behalf. He could have easily preserved these donations only for legal defense purposes, which may mean not posting bail, just as easily as he could have not lied to the judge in the first place. If you want to place blame here for your donations going to a bail bondsman, it's not on the judge - it's on GZ.
Honestly, any arguments suggesting that GZ was "morally" in the right here are laughable to me, and just evidence a clear misunderstanding of how our criminal system works. I'm all for supporting a fellow CCW holder but this was not a moral act on GZ's behalf, and any sort of rationalizing his lies after the fact is nonsense.
-
While I agree that GZ (or more specifically Mrs. GZ) lied to the judge and should be called to task for that, I also think from the comments made by the current judge I'm inclined to believe GZ would have a hard time getting an impartial trial. Right or wrong, that judge was honked off at GZ and he let it be known in what I believe was an in appropriate way.
The Zimmermans should have informed the court of the legal defense fund. No matter what it's intended use.
-
What I know about this stuff could fill maybe an index card, but my understanding is that a basic tenet of the USA is a speedy trial and a fair and reasonable bond. Since when can a judge use the bond ammount as punishment? Mabe they do need a new judge, one that's fair and impartial and not a petty, small minded egotist.
-
What I know about this stuff could fill maybe an index card, but my understanding is that a basic tenet of the USA is a speedy trial and a fair and reasonable bond. Since when can a judge use the bond ammount as punishment? Mabe they do need a new judge, one that's fair and impartial and not a petty, small minded egotist.
I don't think that such a judge exists.
-
What I know about this stuff could fill maybe an index card, but my understanding is that a basic tenet of the USA is a speedy trial and a fair and reasonable bond. Since when can a judge use the bond ammount as punishment? Mabe they do need a new judge, one that's fair and impartial and not a petty, small minded egotist.
I don't think that such a judge exists.
;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tJGk4ofc18
-
Moving right along, George Zimmerman Defense requests new Judge, claims current Judge shows bias and prejudice:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/14/george-zimmerman-asks-for-new-judge-claiming-bias/?test=latestnews
-
I think that's what the discussions been about, Spirit.
-
What I know about this stuff could fill maybe an index card, but my understanding is that a basic tenet of the USA is a speedy trial and a fair and reasonable bond. Since when can a judge use the bond ammount as punishment? Mabe they do need a new judge, one that's fair and impartial and not a petty, small minded egotist.
To play the devil's advocate, who says that the judge is using this bail number as punishment? Likewise, who is to say that the bail the judge set is not fair and reasonable? If GZ had no possible way of making bail, you could argue that the bail figure was set too high. However, it took GZ about a day to post his updated bail, so it's a bit hard to say that it was a completely unreasonable bail requirement. Frankly, if you read the judge's order, he doesn't say anything that harsh about Zimmerman, certainly nothing to qualify him as a "petty, small minded egotist" in my book. You can read the opinion here if you wish (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/SKMBT_363-V12070510360.pdf), though it's not that interesting.
Also, just because a judge has a few "harsh" words to say about someone doesn't mean he's incapable of fairly deciding other issues. Here, just about the harshest thing the judge said is that GZ "flaunted the system" when he lied about his assets at the bail hearing, while he communicated with his wife using code words to shuffle the funds around between their bank accounts on the side. While the judge's order isn't 100% flattering of GZ, why would it be when it's responsive to GZ lying at a bail hearing.
In short, I would really resist the temptation to bash the judge unless and until you really have reviewed all the facts and the statements the judge made (in context). Truth be told, having just read the order, I have a hard time seeing how the label of a "petty, small minded egotist" applies to this judge. As I've said several times here, increasing the bail amount once GZ made misrepresentations at the bail hearing was the right call.
-
I read today that the Judge was complaining now
He feels he?s getting a bad rap from all this negative press he?s been getting
I swear, we should just call him ?Judge Ito? from now on
He?s probable spending more time on his new book that reading Briefs from the case
-
Zimmerman interview with Hannity:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/george-zimmerman-says-prays-for-trayvon-martin-parents-daily/
Also on video at Fox
-
"I read today that the Judge was complaining now
He feels he?s getting a bad rap from all this negative press he?s been getting"
Boy maybe he and Zimmerman should start a support group.
Negative press?
-
Zimmerman interview with Hannity:
I hear that the Martins felt him apology was insincere
What was the guy suppose to do, commit Yubitsume ? ! ?
I stopped counting but I think George apologized six or eight time over the course of the interview
I do feel the ?God?s Will? part WAS a bit much
-
Frankly I think GZ shot himself in the ass with that interview.
I'd bet a bag of doughnuts the prosecution uses his statements against him. His lawyer is a moron to allow that interview.
-
Frankly I think GZ shot himself in the ass with that interview.
I'd bet a bag of doughnuts the prosecution uses his statements against him. His lawyer is a moron to allow that interview.
I couldn't believe it myself when I saw it! WHAT??!!! Are you guys NUTS??!!!
Where are they going to find a jury that didn't hear a word of it? I don't especially see stupidity on Zimmerman's part because he's not a lawyer and he's under tremendous strain and obviously followed the advice of his legal counsel. The lawyer himself ought to be sued though, for malpractice for allowing it!
-
Where are they going to find a jury that didn't hear a word of it?
Maybe that's the plan
-
Wow. This is a disturbing idea.... Martin may have been high on a drug called 'Purple Drank'. A mixture of Skittles, Arizona Watermelon Tea and Robitussin.
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/tx/TG0F35U9S8LVLTJF5
If so this makes a lot of sense.
-
Heard that, also called "lean". I think the prosecutor knows she's shot in the foot, and is trying to make the media attention go "away" so it can die quietly. e'll see.
-
Between the ?Face Eater? using ?Bath Salts? and TM using ?Lean?
I tell you folks, WE'RE SCREWED ! ! !
-
Yep, speaking of drugs, again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_drank
True story, Den, and we're just now realizing how bad it is!
-
There was a comment upstream that the SYG law in Florida needs modifying. We call it the Castle Doctrine here in Fl. The way I see it Zimmerman made a mistake getting out of his car. The Castle Doctrine covers you in your home and an occupied vehicle if being entered by a criminal with a possible threat to life or bodily harm. Had he stood his ground in his car and Martin tried to enter he could have lawfully defended himself without a CCW permit. If he has a CCW permit there are specific situations where he could use deadly force outside of his car. The Fl Castle Doctrine is a good law which does not need changing. It allows , with some restrictions to have a gun in your vehicle without a CCW permit as long as it is in the glove box or a container that has to be opened to access the gun(not needed in your home). Fl has some liberal and very reasonable gun laws that protect our 2nd Ammendment rights. The anti's hate it but they are out numbered here.
-
I think you raise some valid points skipper. If nothing else, I think this case just shows how a lot of real life situations CCW holders may face are not black and white situations, but rather are shades of grey. I don't think GZ did everything right here and I won't suggest he did just because he's a fellow CCW holder. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that he's guilty of murder and the harshest sentence the law allows. While I think it was the wrong decision to pursue TM, it's still unclear who initiated the conflict and who escalated the conflict to a lethal or potentially lethal level. Put another way, we know how the conflict ended, but there's conflicting evidence as to who was winning the fight, did the fight ever turn lethal, and so on. As far as the law is concerned, GZ's guilt varies depending on if GZ both initiated the conflict and escalated the conflict (murder), if GZ initiated the conflict but TM escalated it (likely a lesser charge like manslaughter), if TM both initiated the conflict and escalated the conflict (full self defense) and so on. We'll just have to see what the jury finds as far as facts.
My gut reaction here is that a lesser charge (some form of manslaughter) is appropriate, but we'll just have to see where the jury ends up.
-
Bozwell, I agree with you completely. When Jackson and Sharpton got invovled along with the 24/7 news I quit watching and don't know all of the details. Unless TM was commitng a crime GZ should have stayed in his car watched the situation and just called the police. Definitely a two sided confrontation with a bad ending and we may never know what really happened.
-
And now a second Judge has been removed from Zimmerman's case.
Judge Lester was ordered to recuse himself from this case.
On a personal note, I thought from what I read in the news Judge Lester appeared to be waaaay out of line in his demeanor towards GZ. I personally welcome this news.
-
This is not a murder case it is a witch hunt.
-
This is not a murder case it is a witch hunt.
Yeah, and they already found the witch before they started hunting!
Interesting to see who the new judge will be...?
http://www.newsmax.com/US/zimmerman-wins-new-judge/2012/08/29/id/450290
-
I hadn't heard that GZ is getting a new judge. Good news.
This myth that GZ pursued TM troubles me. Pusuit is defined as: Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them. AsI recall from the disparcher recording, GZ was looking to see where TM was going or what the exact building number was so he could report the information to the police. In military jargon, he was involved in reconnaissance, not pursuit. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that TM stalked GM. Besides, who made a rule that says one who carries must never, ever follow or appear to be following anyone? If that rule were ever put in place one could never leave home while carrying.
-
I hadn't heard that GZ is getting a new judge. Good news.
This myth that GZ pursued TM troubles me. Pusuit is defined as: Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them. AsI recall from the disparcher recording, GZ was looking to see where TM was going or what the exact building number was so he could report the information to the police. In military jargon, he was involved in reconnaissance, not pursuit. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that TM stalked GM. Besides, who made a rule that says one who carries must never, ever follow or appear to be following anyone? If that rule were ever put in place one could never leave home while carrying.
I think people mention that because it just goes towards GZ not avoiding a confrontation that could easily have been avoided. He didn't have to do "recon" work. He didn't have to get out of his car. And so on and so forth. It really goes to (although certainly is not determinative of) who started the conflict, as that has a direct impact on GZ's argument of self defense.
-
I hadn't heard that GZ is getting a new judge. Good news.
This myth that GZ pursued TM troubles me. Pusuit is defined as: Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them. AsI recall from the disparcher recording, GZ was looking to see where TM was going or what the exact building number was so he could report the information to the police. In military jargon, he was involved in reconnaissance, not pursuit. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that TM stalked GM. Besides, who made a rule that says one who carries must never, ever follow or appear to be following anyone? If that rule were ever put in place one could never leave home while carrying.
I think people mention that because it just goes towards GZ not avoiding a confrontation that could easily have been avoided. He didn't have to do "recon" work. He didn't have to get out of his car. And so on and so forth. It really goes to (although certainly is not determinative of) who started the conflict, as that has a direct impact on GZ's argument of self defense.
"
Gz had signs of physical contact which shows there was a scuffle of some type. Unless there are witnesses to what happened it would be hard to prove murder. Sounds a bit messy with the delay in the arrest and changing judges.They may enact the "Stand Your Ground" law and put this issue to rest if there are no credible witnesses.
-
GZ must have started the confrontation by pulling TM on top of him, and in the process battered the back of his head on the sidewalk multiple times and breaking his nose. At the same time he verbally assaulted TM by loudly crying out for help for 40 seconds. Throughout his vicious, premeditated assault, the only injury GM was able to inflict on TM was to scuff up his knuckles -- until he pulled his 9mm and blew away the innocent teenager in cold blood.
There's a saying among lawyers:
?If you have the law on your side, you argue the law. If you have the truth on your side, you argue the truth. If you have neither, bang on the table with your fist, loudly and with as much conviction as possible.?
The state has neither the law or the facts on their side, so all they can do is bang the table loudly by making up supposed limitations on GZ's behavior, e.g., it's illegal to follow someone (law citation, please), it's illegal to get out of one's car (law citation, please), it's illegal to recon (law citation, please), it's illegal to conclude that someone looks suspicious (law citation, please), it's illegal to shoot someone who is beating the living hell out of you and threatening, by word and deed, to kill you if that person is 1) unarmed or 2) a minor (law citation, please), etc. In post-Constitutional America we are no longer a nation of laws and facts are largely irrelevant. All that matters to many is how good of an emotional story you can weave to arrive at the pre-ordained outcome.
-
I don't think the state argued any of that was illegal. ::) I also don't think you fully grasp the laws at play here. An action, while not illegal, may be relevant to determining someone's state of mind.
Here, the reason it's important to know who started the confrontation is because there's a different legal standard applied depending on who initially provokes the aggression. Just because GZ lost the fight doesn't mean TM started it. I could walk up to Brock Lesnar and slap him across the face, and I'm 100% confident I'd go on to lose that fight. In that situation, I initially started the conflict and I'm the initial aggressor in the eyes of the law. Thus, if I turned around and used lethal force to stop his attack, I would face a heightened legal standard in proving self-defense. In some states, self-defense would only reduce my charges to some form of manslaughter or the equivalent charge.
As far as the facts being irrelevant, while the media will almost certainly put their spin on the facts, the facts (as determined by the jury) are entirely what will determine the outcome this case. The jury needs to determine who was the aggressor and whether the force used by TM rose to a level that justified lethal force. A broken nose might bleed a lot, but it isn't lethal. The head injuries might be, but it all comes down to what the jury finds. It's 100% a question of fact and it'll ultimately come down to what the jury thinks happened that day.
-
I don't think the state argued any of that was illegal. ::) I also don't think you fully grasp the laws at play here. An action, while not illegal, may be relevant to determining someone's state of mind.
Here, the reason it's important to know who started the confrontation is because there's a different legal standard applied depending on who initially provokes the aggression. Just because GZ lost the fight doesn't mean TM started it. I could walk up to Brock Lesnar and slap him across the face, and I'm 100% confident I'd go on to lose that fight. In that situation, I initially started the conflict and I'm the initial aggressor in the eyes of the law. Thus, if I turned around and used lethal force to stop his attack, I would face a heightened legal standard in proving self-defense. In some states, self-defense would only reduce my charges to some form of manslaughter or the equivalent charge.
As far as the facts being irrelevant, while the media will almost certainly put their spin on the facts, the facts (as determined by the jury) are entirely what will determine the outcome this case. The jury needs to determine who was the aggressor and whether the force used by TM rose to a level that justified lethal force. A broken nose might bleed a lot, but it isn't lethal. The head injuries might be, but it all comes down to what the jury finds. It's 100% a question of fact and it'll ultimately come down to what the jury thinks happened that day.
Had there not been so much media mania over this shooting there would not be much to say. Have to admit i have somewhat change my view on this will reading the many posts. Hard to say what any of us would have done, but as the saying goes, the beating will continue until morale improves, might just induce lethal action. Mostly depends on how they load the jury. Either way it goes there will be an uproar.
-
If they can even settle on a judge. ;D Voir dire would be interesting to see for this case, as jury selection definitely is going to be an important aspect of this case.
-
A lot of spouting about FL laws and Stand your ground, but this is what the FL statutes state:
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.?A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other?s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013: (3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (This is the Zimmerman Defense.)
776.08?Forcible felony.??Forcible felony? means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
I've added the bold for emphasis. You'll notice that no where in the statutes does it say you can defend yourself with deadly force only from an armed individual. There is also a statute that I couldn't find that says one cannot be arrested for claiming self defense until after an investigation is completed, which is why Zimmerman was not arrested on the spot.
While we all have our opinions as to whether Zimmerman was in the right or the wrong, we should allow the legal system to work as designed before we pass judgement.
-
If they can even settle on a judge. ;D Voir dire would be interesting to see for this case, as jury selection definitely is going to be an important aspect of this case.
Yeah, a judge would be good for starters.
-
SMSgt, you omitted:
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.?The justification described in preceding sections of this chapter (edit: i.e., the defense of self-defense) is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
-
A lot of spouting about FL laws and Stand your ground, but this is what the FL statutes state:
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.?A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other?s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013: (3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (This is the Zimmerman Defense.)
776.08?Forcible felony.??Forcible felony? means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
I've added the bold for emphasis. You'll notice that no where in the statutes does it say you can defend yourself with deadly force only from an armed individual. There is also a statute that I couldn't find that says one cannot be arrested for claiming self defense until after an investigation is completed, which is why Zimmerman was not arrested on the spot.
While we all have our opinions as to whether Zimmerman was in the right or the wrong, we should allow the legal system to work as designed before we pass judgement.
Very good post. Time to lay back see what happens.
-
SMSgt, you omitted:
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.?The justification described in preceding sections of this chapter (edit: i.e., the defense of self-defense) is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
True, but again--none of us were there, we don't know what happened, and it is not ours to decide who was the "assailant" and who was the "aggressor." I do think we can all agree that this whole incident was foolish and could have been prevented. But once that snowball starts rolling downhill...
-
Oh, I'm not suggesting the requirements of 776.041 are satisfied by the facts of this case. We won't know until the jury determines the facts. I only meant that it's relevant and you can bet it will come up at trial.
-
I don't think the state argued any of that was illegal. ::) I also don't think you fully grasp the laws at play here. An action, while not illegal, may be relevant to determining someone's state of mind.
I understand that if GZ is found guilty on the basis of at least some of the lame claims that his known behavior was provocative, and if the trial court's guilty ruling is upheld on appeal, those "provocative" behaviors will become illegal. Of course, that would be absurd, but in post-Constitutional America absurdity is the norm.
Here, the reason it's important to know who started the confrontation is because there's a different legal standard applied depending on who initially provokes the aggression. Just because GZ lost the fight doesn't mean TM started it.
Trouble is, there is no a shred of credible evidence that GZ initiated any aggression. Trying him for the murder of TM is just as baseless as you or I being tried for that murder. It is an abuse of goverment power to submit someone to the whim of a jury (and in this case a judge) when there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.
Don't forget, even if GZ did something provocative (purely speculative), all evidence points to TM being the one who elevated the aggression to the point of it being life threatening, thus granting GZ a license to kill in self defense.
As far as the facts being irrelevant, while the media will almost certainly put their spin on the facts, the facts (as determined by the jury) are entirely what will determine the outcome this case.
That GZ is on trial is proof that the facts are irrelevant.
Media spin? They've already convicted GZ and been caught tampering with the evidence to sway public opinion against GZ.
The jury needs to determine who was the aggressor and whether the force used by TM rose to a level that justified lethal force. A broken nose might bleed a lot, but it isn't lethal. The head injuries might be, but it all comes down to what the jury finds. It's 100% a question of fact and it'll ultimately come down to what the jury thinks happened that day.
Fact -- Any blow to the head, including one that breaks a nose, is potentially life threatening. The evidence demonstrates that GZ took multiple blows to the head over a period of more than 40 sec. Fact -- Just because 12 men are empowered with decision authority doesn't make the story they agree on factual.
Finally, what's the finish on your CZ 82? It looks like a durable polycoat?
-
[W]e should allow the legal system to work as designed before we pass judgement.
Very good post. Time to lay back see what happens.
That GZ is on trial for murder is proof that the legal system is not working.
Why should we lay back and see what a corrupt system brings? The racists and their apologist certainly aren't. Imagine what might happen if the law abiding people who want a nation of laws restored stood up and demanded a return to the rule of law. I suppose we'd have to threaten to riot at a minimum.
-
Trouble is, there is no a shred of credible evidence that GZ initiated any aggression. Trying him for the murder of TM is just as baseless as you or I being tried for that murder.
Self-defense is still an affirmative defense and it's not black and white here as to whether GZ can establish such an affirmative defense. A prima facie case of murder is pretty easy to establish here - GZ doesn't dispute he shot TM and it's a fact that TM is dead. The question is whether GZ can establish he acted in self defense. Florida law prohibits criminal prosecution under these circumstances here unless there's probable cause that the use of lethal force in self defense was not justified. Here, I suspect it probably was, but it's by no means black and white.
It is an abuse of goverment power to submit someone to the whim of a jury (and in this case a judge) when there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.
Don't forget, even if GZ did something provocative (purely speculative), all evidence points to TM being the one who elevated the aggression to the point of it being life threatening, thus granting GZ a license to kill in self defense.
I also don't think it's 100% clear that the force was life threatening. Just because a head wound can theoretically be lethal doesn't mean that each and every head wound justifies the use of deadly force. GZ had some cuts on his head and there was some blood, but anyone who's had or seen head wounds in a fight knows that even the smallest cut on the head will put out a lot of blood, especially during a fight when your heart rate is up and the blood is pumping full force. I'm a bit suspect that a broken nose and a few minor cuts can (or should) rise to the level of justifying lethal force. Now, if they can establish he was slamming his head into the ground or something along those lines (as opposed to his head scraped the ground during the scuffle), he would certainly have a stronger case.
In any event, I fail to see how this case is black and white (or how invoking the Constitution is at all relevant). Hm, bad analogy - I meant that figuratively, not literally. ;D
-
Trouble is, there is no a shred of credible evidence that GZ initiated any aggression. Trying him for the murder of TM is just as baseless as you or I being tried for that murder.
Self-defense is still an affirmative defense and it's not black and white here as to whether GZ can establish such an affirmative defense. A prima facie case of murder is pretty easy to establish here - GZ doesn't dispute he shot TM and it's a fact that TM is dead. The question is whether GZ can establish he acted in self defense. Florida law prohibits criminal prosecution under these circumstances here unless there's probable cause that the use of lethal force in self defense was not justified. Here, I suspect it probably was, but it's by no means black and white.
It is an abuse of goverment power to submit someone to the whim of a jury (and in this case a judge) when there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.
Don't forget, even if GZ did something provocative (purely speculative), all evidence points to TM being the one who elevated the aggression to the point of it being life threatening, thus granting GZ a license to kill in self defense.
I also don't think it's 100% clear that the force was life threatening. Just because a head wound can theoretically be lethal doesn't mean that each and every head wound justifies the use of deadly force. GZ had some cuts on his head and there was some blood, but anyone who's had or seen head wounds in a fight knows that even the smallest cut on the head will put out a lot of blood, especially during a fight when your heart rate is up and the blood is pumping full force. I'm a bit suspect that a broken nose and a few minor cuts can (or should) rise to the level of justifying lethal force. Now, if they can establish he was slamming his head into the ground or something along those lines (as opposed to his head scraped the ground during the scuffle), he would certainly have a stronger case.
In any event, I fail to see how this case is black and white (or how invoking the Constitution is at all relevant). Hm, bad analogy - I meant that figuratively, not literally. ;D
Gz is here to testify and TM is not. The way I read the Stand Your Ground law posted GZ has a very good chance of declaring self defense and will walk. If there is no solid evidence in TM's favor, he should not be tried according to Florida law. But what if........
-
I agree that there's a good chance he walks. I'd disagree that there's no evidence in TM's favor. The question is really whether deadly force was justified. A broken nose and some minor cuts may or may not give rise to the use of deadly force. That's what the jury has to sort out. If we were talking serious lacerations, skull fractures, or something of that nature, the injuries would likely speak for themselves. But a minor cut, even one that produces quite a bit of blood (as head wounds tend to do), isn't really that serious. Nor is a broken nose. Frankly, I would consider that type of injury to be almost routine in any sort of fist fight, and not necessarily egregious or rising to the level where it justifies lethal force. If they can establish other facts though, such as "slamming his head into the ground", that would tip the balance in GZ's favor.
Anyways, it's all speculative at this point. We just need to wait and see what happens. :)
-
I agree that there's a good chance he walks. I'd disagree that there's no evidence in TM's favor. The question is really whether deadly force was justified. A broken nose and some minor cuts may or may not give rise to the use of deadly force. That's what the jury has to sort out. If we were talking serious lacerations, skull fractures, or something of that nature, the injuries would likely speak for themselves. But a minor cut, even one that produces quite a bit of blood (as head wounds tend to do), isn't really that serious. Nor is a broken nose. Frankly, I would consider that type of injury to be almost routine in any sort of fist fight, and not necessarily egregious or rising to the level where it justifies lethal force. If they can establish other facts though, such as "slamming his head into the ground", that would tip the balance in GZ's favor.
Anyways, it's all speculative at this point. We just need to wait and see what happens. :)
TM may have been telling GZ just what all he was going to do to him as he was banging his head and breaking his nose. Had TM beat GZ to death we would not even have heard about it. WE shall see, there are a lot of politics invovled in this one.
-
Who know maybe Obama will jump in and just have GM found guilty and then envoke executive privledge.
-
Self-defense is still an affirmative defense and it's not black and white here as to whether GZ can establish such an affirmative defense. A prima facie case of murder is pretty easy to establish here - GZ doesn't dispute he shot TM and it's a fact that TM is dead. The question is whether GZ can establish he acted in self defense. Florida law prohibits criminal prosecution under these circumstances here unless there's probable cause that the use of lethal force in self defense was not justified. Here, I suspect it probably was, but it's by no means black and white.
In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The victim is dead;
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
3. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
We can agree that criterion #1 is met. Perhaps you can provide prima facie evidence the #2 and #3 are met? A corrupt prosecutor filed an inadequate and unethical petition that was accepted by what we now know is a judge found to be biased against GZ. There is no credible evidence that GZ committed a crime in killing TM; in fact, all the credible evidence points to the contrary. There is no evidence at all that GZ killed TM in a state of depravity with no regard for human life. The prosecutor and judge deprived GZ of justice because they fear the threat of a racist riot. So much for equal protection under the law in Floriduh.
I also don't think it's 100% clear that the force was life threatening. Just because a head wound can theoretically be lethal doesn't mean that each and every head wound justifies the use of deadly force. GZ had some cuts on his head and there was some blood, but anyone who's had or seen head wounds in a fight knows that even the smallest cut on the head will put out a lot of blood, especially during a fight when your heart rate is up and the blood is pumping full force. I'm a bit suspect that a broken nose and a few minor cuts can (or should) rise to the level of justifying lethal force. Now, if they can establish he was slamming his head into the ground or something along those lines (as opposed to his head scraped the ground during the scuffle), he would certainly have a stronger case.
How many bone-breaking, head wound-creating blows to the head are you willing to absorb before concluding either that you are under threat of death or grievous bodily harm? With all due respect, you are free to absorb as many as you like, but if you respond with a number greater than one, I must conclude that your genetic fitness is rather low.
Don't forget that GZ yelled for help for more than 40 sec, and only remembered that he was armed whem TM noticed his pistol, informed GZ that he was going to die, and attempted to steal his weapon. Are you also willing to give a bad guy who informs you he intends to kill you your carry weapon? Feel free to be generous and turn the other cheek (for the final time), but even Floriduh law doesn't require that, Castle Doctrine or not.
In any event, I fail to see how this case is black and white (or how invoking the Constitution is at all relevant). Hm, bad analogy - I meant that figuratively, not literally. ;D
The case is B&W because there is insufficient evidence to charge GZ with murder. Because of fear of or sympathies with the riotous racists, the prosecutor and judge have ignored the law and the facts. How long the injustice system will persecute GZ remains to be seen. As has been noted in this thread, there are good reasons to question the competence of GZ's attorney, which doesn't bode well for either GZ or ultimately the law (and thus Floriduh society) to prevail.
I mentioned the Constitution because it, along with many of this country's laws (at all levels), are frequently ignored -- we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. GZ's persecution demonstrates this perfectly -- his individual rights are being sacrificed to appease the riotous masses consisting of racists, anti-gunners, and bleeding-heart progressives.
Now gosh darn it, please tell me what finish you have on that good-looking CZ 82 of yours. I have one on the way and am pondering how to refinish it if it needs refinishing.
-
Gz is here to testify and TM is not. The way I read the Stand Your Ground law posted GZ has a very good chance of declaring self defense and will walk. If there is no solid evidence in TM's favor, he should not be tried according to Florida law. But what if........
Who's fault is it that TM can't testify? Then again, his body testified to his offensive behavior (the wounds on his knuckles) and his drug-addled lifestyle (the THC in his body fluids). Was he tested for Purple Drank? I haven't read that he was. Perhaps there is still more his corpse can say. GZ's attorney is going after TM's social internet contents, which aren't pretty.
Given that the prosecutor has shown herself to be corrupt and so has the judge, I would imagine GZ is likely suffering from tyrannical government-induced PTSD. In addition, he is financially ruined, the media has trashed his reputation, and his prospects for a long, healthy life, whatever the legal outcome, are not good. The only bright spot I can see is that a highly politicized and racist US Justice Department hate crime investigation came out in GZ's favor (as the facts necessitated). I hope the state takes that as a signal to start following the law from here on out.
-
Gz is here to testify and TM is not. The way I read the Stand Your Ground law posted GZ has a very good chance of declaring self defense and will walk. If there is no solid evidence in TM's favor, he should not be tried according to Florida law. But what if........
Who's fault is it that TM can't testify? Then again, his body testified to his offensive behavior (the wounds on his knuckles) and his drug-addled lifestyle (the THC in his body fluids). Was he tested for Purple Drank? I haven't read that he was. Perhaps there is still more his corpse can say. GZ's attorney is going after TM's social internet contents, which aren't pretty.
Given that the prosecutor has shown herself to be corrupt and so has the judge, I would imagine GZ is likely suffering from tyrannical government-induced PTSD. In addition, he is financially ruined, the media has trashed his reputation, and his prospects for a long, healthy life, whatever the legal outcome, are not good. The only bright spot I can see is that a highly politicized and racist US Justice Department hate crime investigation came out in GZ's favor (as the facts necessitated). I hope the state takes that as a signal to start following the law from here on out.
So, our Floriduh laws worked with the exception of media mania and the biased prosecutor and imcompetent judge. I agree, we have a real problem with all of the down here. Don't have a CZ 82 but have had serious thoughts for a CZ 83.
-
You might be surprised how case law interprets those provisions of the statute Skook. A plain-english reading of acting with a "depraved mind" sounds pretty extreme, but you have to look at how that language has been interpreted by the Florida courts. I don't want to get into a serious legal debate over this, but this is an excerpt from Florida's jury instructions regarding the third element:
A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."
Shooting someone - that's reasonably certain to kill or cause serious bodily injury, and pointing a gun and pulling the trigger certainly indicates an indifference to human life. The prosecutor will argue (right or wrong) that GZ had ill will or spite against TM due to losing the fight, possibly prejudice, and whatever else he comes up with. I'm not saying he'll be successful in proving it, but it's not the elevated requirement a plain-english reading of those words would lead one to believe.
The criminal act is simply GZ pointing his gun at TM and pulling the trigger, and will be pretty easy to establish. Now, as I said before, GZ can still show that he acted in self defense and use this as a defense to the second degree murder charges, and he probably has a good chance of proving such a defense, but the prosecutor's prima facie case isn't that difficult to show.
-
Related news, push for repeal of Florida Stand Your Ground Law:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/stand-ground-florida-law/2012/09/14/id/451888
-
Who know maybe Obama will jump in and just have GM found guilty and then envoke executive privledge.
Would not surprise me. :-[
-
[T]his is an excerpt from Florida's jury instructions regarding the third element:
A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."
Let's examine the above three points needed to meet element 3.
First, can we expect a person of ordinary judgment to think like you or I might be thinking behind the security of our computer screens when he has taken a brutal, 40+ second beating? I think not. I think a person of ordinary judgment under such circumstances would not be thinking solely of self preservation, of making the beating stop.
Second, there is nothing in GZ's behavior, before or after the incident, that points to any ill will, hatred, etc. on his part. In fact, the politicized and racist US Justice Dept investigate him in the hope of finding some scintilla of evidence of such in order to bring federal hate crime charges against GZ. The corrupt federal agency came up empty. (Not a shock, given that GZ himself is black.)
Third, the fact that GZ allowed a threatening thus to close within striking distance of him, allowed himself to be subjected to a brutal, 40+ second beating, and only drew his weapon after TM tried to steal it from him while announcing his intent to use it on GZ to murder him shows great restraint on GZ's part that must be rooted in a respect for human life. Further, the fact that he shot only once shows additional restraint rooted in a respect for life. No self-defense expert would endorse anything less than a double tap under the circumstance (as the menacing and drugged TM closed to striking distance).
All three points must be satisfied to satisfy element 3, yet not a single point is met. Further, element 3 does not stand alone; all three elements must be met, but only one is -- TM is dead. Element 2 is not met, because it is not a crime to point a gun at someone who is beating you and threatening to murder you.
-
Related news, push for repeal of Florida Stand Your Ground Law:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/stand-ground-florida-law/2012/09/14/id/451888
" Many Florida residents support the law and believe it saves law-abiding citizens from protracted criminal trials for crimes they did not commit."
The GZ case proves that the law doesn't need to be repealed, it needs to be strengthened.
-
Skook, all of your points above are valid and that's likely what GZ's attorney will argue. When looking at a legal dispute though, you really have to put your own opinion aside though and look at what other valid arguments the other side can make. You're taking your view of the facts and judging, based on your own view of the facts, that the prosecution can't make a primary case. That's just not how it works.
There are facts the prosecution can argue that cut the other way, and when establishing a prima facie case for purposes of determining whether you can bring charges like this, you construe the facts favorably for the prosecution. GZ initiated pursuit and brought his gun with him. At some point, for some reason, he got out of his vehicle to confront TM. There's no concrete evidence other than GZ's testimony that TM tried to steal his weapon from its holster. GZ was wounded in the fight, but we're talking fairly minor wounds that are typical for someone who's been in a fist fight, and they're wounds that 99% of people walk away from. At some point, a fist fight can turn lethal, but it's up to a jury to really determine whether that was the case here. A broken nose and a couple cuts? Maybe.
Anyways, I see no point hashing this out further. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the outcome, but I don't think you completely understand how the law/legal system works in this scenario, and we're not going to get anywhere debating it like this.
-
When looking at a legal dispute though, you really have to put your own opinion aside though and look at what other valid arguments the other side can make.
I have seen the arguments the other side is making. They are rooted in emotion, are erroneous or illogical, and are backed by government corruption.
There are facts the prosecution can argue that cut the other way, and when establishing a prima facie case for purposes of determining whether you can bring charges like this, you construe the facts favorably for the prosecution. GZ initiated pursuit and brought his gun with him.
There is no evidence that GZ pursued TM, and there is audio evidence indicating he did not do so. On the contrary, there is evidence that TM stalked GZ. There is nothing nefarious about carrying a gun, especially if you hold an appropriate permit.
At some point, for some reason, he got out of his vehicle to confront TM.
The point and reason for GZ exiting gis vehicle is known and documented on audio tape. It was not for purpose of pursuit. Words have meaning, except among the modern corrupt media and in corrupt courtrooms.
There's no concrete evidence other than GZ's testimony that TM tried to steal his weapon from its holster.
Then you must explain, if GZ had malicious intent, why he did not draw his weapon before allowing TM to close within striking distance (audio informs us that GZ was under the impression that TM was armed) and suffered a lengthy and brutal beating.
GZ was wounded in the fight, but we're talking fairly minor wounds that are typical for someone who's been in a fist fight, and they're wounds that 99% of people walk away from. At some point, a fist fight can turn lethal, but it's up to a jury to really determine whether that was the case here. A broken nose and a couple cuts? Maybe.
How many blows to your head are you willing to absorb before you take measures to defend yourself? Assume the victim is your wife or daughter -- how many punches to her face and slams of her head against the pavement are you willing to demand she suffer before you grant her permission to defend herself?
Anyways, I see no point hashing this out further.
Of course not, as the prosecution doesn't have a leg to stand on. In my experience, the side that resorts to corruption does so because the law and facts are not on their side.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the outcome, but I don't think you completely understand how the law/legal system works in this scenario, and we're not going to get anywhere debating it like this.
I understand legal corruption when I see it. I also know that apologizing for such corruption fosters more corruption, and when the corruption jeopardizes gun rights America loses.
Thanks for the info on EFW. They either do exceptional work or take amazingly great photos or both.
-
How many blows to your head are you willing to absorb before you take measures to defend yourself?
It's a question of how one defends himself and whether lethal force was justified. No one disputes that GZ could fight back. The question is whether the law allows GZ to escalate this fist fight and to use lethal force.
There's no evidence of head slams beyond 2 small cuts on the back of his head. If his head was getting SLAMMED against the ground, he'd have bruising, large contusions, perhaps even a concussion. Instead, he got a black eye, a broken nose and a couple small cuts. I suspect his head scraped the ground when he got hit, but that's a farcry from him getting his head slammed on pavement.
What's clear is GZ did lose the fight. Did he get punched? Yes. Did he end up on the ground? Yes. Was his life in imminent danger? Who knows. I've seen fist fights with way worse injuries than GZ sustained and no one was worried about someone dying.
Assume the victim is your wife or daughter -- how many punches to her face and slams of her head against the pavement are you willing to demand she suffer before you grant her permission to defend herself?
What if TM wasn't a 160lb male, but what if instead he was a WEREWOLF! Then surely GZ could defend himself right? Changing the facts gets us no where - this wasn't a little girl fighting, this was 2 equally sized guys in a fist fight. Talking about GZ being someone's wife or child is nonsense.
As far as why he got out of the car, yes, it's clear why - he lost sight of TM and went looking for him. ::) What's abundantly clear is that GZ could have avoided this encounter if he chose to do so. He didn't.
Also, talk of legal corruption and the like is just nonsense here. If I've seen any corruption involved so far, it's GZ attempting to circumvent his bail through shady money transfers and lying under oath. This isn't an open and shut case of self defense, nor is it some racially motivated hate crime. It's a fist fight that escalated to a shooting, and it's not clear that the shooter is free from any and all blame for this outcome. How much blame, if any, requires a jury to sort it out. While it's unlikely 2nd degree murder sticks, I'm still not convinced a lesser charge of manslaughter is not appropriate for GZ.
-
It's a question of how one defends himself and whether lethal force was justified. No one disputes that GZ could fight back. The question is whether the law allows GZ to escalate this fist fight and to use lethal force.
A single shot from a handgun is, about 80% of the time, not fatal. If you assume repeated blows to the head are not life threatening, how can you assume a single shot from a handgun is life threatening? And, how many blows to the head are you willing to absorb before drawing your weapon? Once you draw your weapon, how many times would you shoot?
There's no evidence of head slams beyond 2 small cuts on the back of his head. If his head was getting SLAMMED against the ground, he'd have bruising, large contusions, perhaps even a concussion. Instead, he got a black eye, a broken nose and a couple small cuts. I suspect his head scraped the ground when he got hit, but that's a farcry from him getting his head slammed on pavement.
GZ appears to have had the great fortune of being on his back when his head was slammed repeatedly on the pavement; thus, not having far to travel with each slam, his head the trauma was insufficient to evoke your compassion. Please enlighten me with the number head blows a law-abiding citizen must absorb before you are willing to grant such citizen permission to defend himself with potentially lethal force?
What's clear is GZ did lose the fight. Did he get punched? Yes. Did he end up on the ground? Yes. Was his life in imminent danger? Who knows. I've seen fist fights with way worse injuries than GZ sustained and no one was worried about someone dying.
Again, how many head blows must one absorb before one may conclude one's life is in imminent danger? How long must one call out for help while having one's head repeatedly bludgeoned before concluding help isn't coming snd you are on your own? Apparently you believe 40+ seconds is insufficient. How is one supposed to keep accurate track of the numbers of blows and the time while being savagely beaten?
There is ear-witness and audio evidence indicating that plenty of people heard the fight and GZ's cries for help, but none responded -- because they feared for their lives!! One mother is heard to order her son away from the window because of her fear for his life and safety. I am amazed that no one is criticizing these witnesses for their fear preventing them from intervening in a way that could have saved a life, but the person being subjected to the savage beating for some reason must be held to a higher standard of judgment.
What if TM wasn't a 160lb male, but what if instead he was a WEREWOLF! Then surely GZ could defend himself right? Changing the facts gets us no where - this wasn't a little girl fighting, this was 2 equally sized guys in a fist fight. Talking about GZ being someone's wife or child is nonsense.
Presenting you with altered circumstances is resulting in some progress. You now admit that self defense with a gun is legitimate in some circumstances. What if your wife or daughter were being savagely beaten by a female thug of size equal to hers? How many blows to her head would you instruct her to absorb before you gave her permission to draw her weapon?
As far as why he got out of the car, yes, it's clear why - he lost sight of TM and went looking for him. ::) What's abundantly clear is that GZ could have avoided this encounter if he chose to do so. He didn't.
More progress? You did not use the inapplicable word, "pursuit." GZ also stated that he went to look for the address of the building TM disappeared behind so the dispatcher could inform the responding officer how to more easily locate GZ when he arrived.
What is painfully clear is that TM could have easily avoided this encounter if he chose to do so. TM chose poorly.
Also, talk of legal corruption and the like is just nonsense here. If I've seen any corruption involved so far, it's GZ attempting to circumvent his bail through shady money transfers and lying under oath.
Talk about legal corruption is always appropriate in the face of legal corruption -- unless you are an anti-American progressive spouting political correctness nonsense, which I assume you are not.
This isn't an open and shut case of self defense ...
It most certainly is based on the lame arguments emanating from the prosecution topped with healthy doses of prosecutorial and judicial corruption.
[N]or is it some racially motivated hate crime.
It most certainly is based on the biased and corrupt reporting by the media, the calls by racists for GZ's death, and the corrupt way the state is pandering to the racist mob. This is a classic case of racism in action -- a coalition of black racists and white progressive racists doing everything in their power to persecute a helpless Hispanic black man of Jewish ancestry. Gun control has its ugly roots in racism, making its first big appearance in the wake of the Civil War as a way to control blacks. Some things don't change.
It's a fist fight that escalated to a shooting, and it's not clear that the shooter is free from any and all blame for this outcome. How much blame, if any, requires a jury to sort it out. While it's unlikely 2nd degree murder sticks, I'm still not convinced a lesser charge of manslaughter is not appropriate for GZ.
It is also a school suspension that escalated into a shooting. It is also a mixed martial arts beatdown that escalated into a shooting. Who cares? What is relevant is the facts (not some story fabricated by an intimidate jury) and the law.
GZ hasn't been charged with manslaughter. He may be guilty of stealing cookies at some point in his life, but he hasn't been charged with that, either. ;D
-
It's a rather murky case with a lot of important factors not being known to us (or at least not to me). What we may never know is what exactly went down when the 2 men came face to face. And yes, both were men, showing baby pictures of the young man killed doesn't shrink him back in size to that day. Neither does the fact that he was unarmed mean that he could not have killed Zimmermann (getting your head slammed to the ground is a pretty good way to get seriously injured or killed I believe).
What happened when they came face to face, I wonder?
-
I don't mean any offense by this, but I think your lack of knowledge of how the legal system works leads you to erroneous conclusions about "legal corruption" and the like. A better understanding of the law might help you to really understand the requirements in that statute and what's required for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case sufficient to bring such a lawsuit. Also, then you would also then stop making silly arguments about shooting someone not being "lethal force." ::) Where there's no dispute that party A shot party B, and there are facts that cut both ways when it comes to self defense, they've established their prima facie case.
Also, you seem to suggest I don't think a justified self-defense shooting can occur - if that was the case, I wouldn't carry a gun. I've also said multiple times in this thread that I suspect GZ will get off or that the jury will find him guilty of a lesser charge (which the jury here can do).
Would I have shot back in GZ's shoes in this situation? Very likely. But then again, I wouldn't go pursuing someone that I suspected had ill intentions, once I had called the police. Regardless, as a purely legal matter, this should go before a jury, as there are some disputed facts that a jury needs to resolve.
In any event, you seem to be taking this personally and I don't really want to give a crash course in criminal law. This will be my last post for this discussion.