And this is the crap getting play in the media. No mention of Black on Black, or Mexican on Mexican etc violence. Get one guy who can perceived as "White" and now we have an issue and should riot and destroy our neighborhoods. Jackson, Sharpton, NBP should be up on charges of inciting violence.
Zimmerman, the Florida man who claims he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, has set up a personal website to collect money for his legal expenses, his attorneys told NBC News on Monday.
Its looking better for Zimmerman. Police announced that this wont go to a gran jury.
I'm thinking it's the opposite. With Zimmerman's dad being a local judge and his mom being a county clerk (please correct me if I'm wrong on this), I'm thinking Z's best way to "work the system" would have been to keep it local (at least that's how it works around here). Pulling it out of the local system means a lack of political influence from inside (as it should be anyway). Just my take.
Zimmerman, the Florida man who claims he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, has set up a personal website to collect money for his legal expenses, his attorneys told NBC News on Monday.
Well it was their "experts" opinions that NOT going to the grand jury was a sign that the prosecuter is ready to make a case and an arrest would be coming within the next week. They were saying that often the lawyers will "know" that the grand jury will strike down an arrest due to whatever reasons and that it's often the easy way out.
In Oklahoma of all places, two men suspected of shooting and killing a number of people very late in the evening were arrested and given enormously high bails as soon as it became clear who might have done it. Police worked around the clock to identify them, relying on tips (in the absence of something like a telephone recording from the shooters themselves leading up to the event). They have not been charged because prosecutors, etc. don't have everything they need for their case yet but there is sufficient certainty that two men shot other people to merit an arrest. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thought it'd be interesting to contrast that to the Florida situation. No protest rallies, no "NPBP", no Jesse, no Sharpton. Just the police doing their jobs and the justice system working as it's designed to do.
In Oklahoma of all places, two men suspected of shooting and killing a number of people very late in the evening were arrested and given enormously high bails as soon as it became clear who might have done it. Police worked around the clock to identify them, relying on tips (in the absence of something like a telephone recording from the shooters themselves leading up to the event). They have not been charged because prosecutors, etc. don't have everything they need for their case yet but there is sufficient certainty that two men shot other people to merit an arrest. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thought it'd be interesting to contrast that to the Florida situation. No protest rallies, no "NPBP", no Jesse, no Sharpton. Just the police doing their jobs and the justice system working as it's designed to do.
Perhaps they weren't using guns but some other device capable of firing bullets.
Apples to oranges. Two guys going on a killing spree, versus one man trying to protect himself from a low life thug. Of course it is going to be easier for the police to go after the first two whack jobs. Now as an added twist, if some of the members of the black community had fought back against England and Watts during their shooting spree, killing one of the two of them in the process - would you also be calling for their arrest? What if the two shooters had Iced Tea and Skittles on them, would this change your opinion?
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 04-10-2012).]
Now as an added twist, if some of the members of the black community had fought back against England and Watts during their shooting spree, killing one of the two of them in the process - would you also be calling for their arrest? What if the two shooters had Iced Tea and Skittles on them, would this change your opinion?
In answer to your first question, yes I would. EQUAL treatment under the law, not SPECIAL treatment under it.
I'm not even going to address the second one. I've given my views on that numerous times already had you bothered to read them.
So far you have called Zimmerman a racist, a murderer, a stalker, a liar, and likely many other things I have missed.
As I see it right now according to the real evidence that has been put forward (not speculation and theory), Zimmerman is a victim of violence, he defended himself using the force he deemed necessary, and now he is the victim of people like you that have judged him wrongly and will not change their view on Zimmerman regardless of what is said or done. He now gets to live with the consequences of defending himself, which in this case will likely include death by a mob of people...Which is a group of people on the same side as you, saying a lot of the same things you do coincidentally.
How would you like me to take that?
Brad
Posting articles that show what other people are thinking is not the same as me saying those things, it also doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with them. Show me where I have said that Zimmerman is a racist or a liar. You can't say that he isn't a murderer because he did kill someone, isn't that the definition of murder? He also was stalking Martin before the incident, we know this from the phone conversations that were going on as this incident was unfolding. You seem to be the one passing a lot of judgement here and your past experience with the police is certainly coloring your thoughts in this case. This is especially true by your trying to group me with people that would bring harm to Zimmerman, that is unfair and untrue about my position on Zimmerman. You cannot deny that Zimmerman killed Martin. No one else did this. People are upset because they don't know why he did this or if it was truly justified. We can't ask Martin for his side of the story, we only have Zimmerman's version. It doesn't matter what either of these people did in their lives before this incident. Neither knew the other before this happened. I have been posting the different stories allegedly told to friends by Zimmerman and those told by witnesses. The problem I have is that all of these stories are not consistent with each other and they keep changing. Some witnesses say it was Zimmerman on top of Martin, others say it was the other way around, the same goes for who was actually calling for help. Every new story that leaks out, trying to exonerate his actions, sounds like an excuse because of this and because they aren't consitant. It's seems like those on Zimmerman's side are trying to throw everything out there just to see what sticks. This reports may contain some truth, but we have no proof of this, so they can't really be relied upon and should be taken with a grain of salt. If Zimmerman is a victim, it is because of his own actions. He followed Martin aggressively enough to be noticed and to cause a confrontation. All he had to do was to hang back and wait for police to come and do their job. He didn't need to put himself and others in danger like he did, especially after he reported a suspicious person that "may be on drugs" with "something suspicious in their waistband". Would a normal, unarmed, person proceed to follow someone like that and endanger their lives by doing so? I don't think so. An armed person would also need to carefully consider that choice, because one never knows how a person under the influence of drugs might act. He should have kept his distance and kept the police informed until they arrived, everyone would have been safe if he had done that, and no one would have ended up in the morgue. My guess is, since he had a gun, he felt he could choose a more dangerous option and continue to follow like he did and even engaged in a short foot chase when Martin ran. If I were to run because I suspected I was being followed, and the person following me also ran, It would confirm my suspicions about being followed. That would only leave me two options then: 1- run and hope I get away or 2- confront the person following and find out why they are following me. I also would defend myself should there be a need to do so. I cannot pass judgment on what happened because I don't have all the facts or evidence to form an unbiased opinion about this. I can only speculate what happened from the hearsay, innuendo, and a little bit of leaked evidence I have seen and heard. It also isn't my place to judge him, that will be the justice system's job, so stop trying to group me with a lynch mob that wants to bring him harm, that is unfair and uncalled for. I have said, from the beginning of this thread, that I want justice to be served and for Zimmerman to have his day in court, not at the hands of a bunch of racially inflamed people. I'll be perfectly happy with any outcome the special prosecutor arrives at to settle this matter. From what I know, Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal. He just was a bit overzealous when it came to the way he did it. His actions and choices had a higher chance of ending in the death of someone. Should he be punished for this? Let the special prosecutor figure that out, not some street kangaroo court run by the Black Panthers.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-10-2012).]
The only way for me to comment on this drivel is to break it into pieces, I apologize for that but see no way around it. --------------------
quote
Originally posted by avengador1:
Posting articles that show what other people are thinking is not the same as me saying those things, it also doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with them. Show me where I have said that Zimmerman is a racist or a liar. You can't say that he isn't a murderer because he did kill someone, isn't that the definition of murder?
I Googled "Murder definition" mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Only a murderer if you have already passed judgement on him, as it seems you have.
quote
He also was stalking Martin before the incident, we know this from the phone conversations that were going on as this incident was unfolding.
-------------------------------------- I Googled "Stalking definition" stalkingpresent participle of stalk (Verb) Verb:
Pursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird". Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".
Following a suspect person does not equal stalking. Seriously Madcurl...I mean Avengador.
quote
You seem to be the one passing a lot of judgement here and your past experience with the police is certainly coloring your thoughts in this case.
----------------------------------------- Oh please, go on with this line of thought, the one where I agree with the Police and you disagree, but my supposed hatred of the Police is clouding my judgement.
quote
You cannot deny that he killed Martin.
Yes your honor, I freely admit that he killed Martin.
quote
No one else did this.
You are paying attention then.
quote
People are upset because they don't know why he did this or if it was truly justified. We can't ask the Martin for his side of the story, we only have Zimmerman's version. It doesn't matter what either of these people did in their lives before this incident. Neither knew the other before this happened.
------------------------------------- And one has a very real recent history of violence, the other doesn't. The one with a history of violence is reported to have attacked the one that didn't have a recent history of violence, are you seriously this thick?
quote
I have been posting the different stories allegedly told to friends by Zimmerman and those told by witnesses. The problem I have is that all of these stories are not consistent with each other and they keep changing.
I see your problem (one of em). You are taking stories and taking them as facts. Zimmerman has not released anything except what was told to the Police, yet you keep saying he has multiple stories, people tell you otherwise and you ignore them. The witnesses that were actually there have reports with the Police. Anyone that comes forward and does not have a report with the Police is not a factual witness. This is reality, stop slinging lies around, and start looking for the truth.
quote
Some witnesses say it was Zimmerman on top of Martin, others say it was the other way around, the same goes for who was actually calling for help. Every new story that leaks out, trying to exonerate his actions, sounds like an excuse because of this and because they aren't consitant.
Oh dear lord. You have lost your mind.
So the stories people are making up are not consistent. Sounds legit. I'm sure there is a reason for that...
quote
It's seems like those on Zimmerman's side are trying to throw everything out there just to see what sticks.
You accidentally swapped Zimmerman for Martin there, honest mistake.
quote
This reports may contain some truth, but we have no proof of this, so they can't really be relied upon and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Read this again, then go up where you speak of witnesses that suddenly appeared being taken as gospel. You are flip flopping enough that you should run for office.
quote
If Zimmerman is a victim, it is because of his own actions. He followed Martin aggressively enough to be noticed and to cause a confrontation. All he had to do was to hang back and wait for police to come and do their job. He didn't need to put himself and others in danger like he did, especially after he reported a suspicious person that "may be on drugs" with "something suspicious in their waistband". Would a normal, unarmed, person proceed to follow someone like that and endanger their lives by doing so? I don't think so. An armed person would also need to carefully consider that choice, because one never knows how a person under the influence of drugs might act. He should have kept his distance and kept the police informed until they arrived, everyone would have been safe if he had done that, and no one would have ended up in the morgue. My guess is, since he had a gun, he felt he could choose a more dangerous option and continue to follow like he did and even engaged in a short foot chase when Martin ran. If I were to run because I suspected I was being followed, and the person following me also ran, It would confirm my suspicions about being followed. That would only leave me two options then: 1- run and hope I get away or 2- confront the person following and find out why they are following me. I also would defend myself should there be a need to do so.
So a story you have created is once again gospel, and just because it doesn't fit what you would do, it can't be true. By the way, this story doesn't fit others that say Martin was the aggressor (apparently the one the Police found to be factual).
quote
I cannot pass judgment on what happened because I don't have all the facts or evidence to form an unbiased opinion about this.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, that actually brought a tear to my eye. Please, go on again about how you haven't judged Zimmerman as guilty. lol.
quote
I can only speculate what happened from the hearsay, innuendo, and a little bit of leaked evidence I have seen and heard. It also isn't my place to judge him, that will be the justice system's job, so stop trying to group me with a lynch mob that wants to bring him harm, that is unfair and uncalled for. I have said, from the beginning of this thread, that I want justice to be served and for Zimmerman to have his day in court, not at the hands of a bunch of racially inflamed people. I'll be perfectly happy with any outcome the special prosecutor arrives at to settle this matter. From what I know, Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal. He just was a bit overzealous when it came to the way he did it. His actions and choices had a higher chance of ending in the death of someone. Should he be punished for this? Let the special prosecutor figure that out, not some street kangaroo court run by the Black Panthers.
I highlighted the funny parts, especially when you look at these quotes....From the same post.
quote
Posted by Avengador1
You can't say that he isn't a murderer
He also was stalking Martin before the incident
they don't know why he did this or if it was truly justified
He followed Martin aggressively
since he had a gun, he felt he could choose a more dangerous option and continue to follow like he did and even engaged in a short foot chase when Martin ran.
Their complaining Zimmerman is asking for donations on his website. His lawyer says its true. Why shouldnt he, the media and haters all ruined his life....he cant work, cant live with his family and has no other means of support and no one has found him even guilty. Meanwhile its OK for the Martin family to live on donations, trademark their sons name, sell posters and t shirts. No one in his family is working. Prob even people like Sharpton are giving them money too. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I donated to Zimmerman.
Their complaining Zimmerman is asking for donations on his website. His lawyer says its true. Why shouldnt he, the media and haters all ruined his life....he cant work, cant live with his family and has no other means of support and no one has found him even guilty. Meanwhile its OK for the Martin family to live on donations, trademark their sons name, sell posters and t shirts. No one in his family is working. Prob even people like Sharpton are giving them money too. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I donated to Zimmerman.
If I had any money I would donate to Zimmerman as well. It's not a "defense fund" as much as a fund for a guy that has had his life destroyed because he defended himself.
In Oklahoma of all places, two men suspected of shooting and killing a number of people very late in the evening were arrested and given enormously high bails as soon as it became clear who might have done it. Police worked around the clock to identify them, relying on tips (in the absence of something like a telephone recording from the shooters themselves leading up to the event). They have not been charged because prosecutors, etc. don't have everything they need for their case yet but there is sufficient certainty that two men shot other people to merit an arrest. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thought it'd be interesting to contrast that to the Florida situation. No protest rallies, no "NPBP", no Jesse, no Sharpton. Just the police doing their jobs and the justice system working as it's designed to do.
Perhaps they weren't using guns but some other device capable of firing bullets.
I don't see the two events comparable. The FL shooting is allegedly self-defense, where the Ohio shooting lists possible diminished mental capacity from one suspect's father's death in 2010, plus their confessions.
Then again, I don't automatically see Zimmerman shooting Martin as a case of a WHITE-hispanic shooting a defenseless BLACK CHILD armed only with Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea who was just walking home from the convenience store, presumably wanting a snack after finishing his Bible study and taking care of injured kittens.
The way this Narrative™ is playing out in the media, I'm surprised Eric Holder hasn't brought the State of Arizona up on charges of inciting this obvious hate crime since the victim was "armed" with an Arizona Iced Tea, clearly the most racist of all teas.
I don't see the two events comparable. The FL shooting is allegedly self-defense, where the Ohio shooting lists possible diminished mental capacity from one suspect's father's death in 2010, plus their confessions.
Then again, I don't automatically see Zimmerman shooting Martin as a case of a WHITE-hispanic shooting a defenseless BLACK CHILD armed only with Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea who was just walking home from the convenience store, presumably wanting a snack after finishing his Bible study and taking care of injured kittens.
The way this Narrative™ is playing out in the media, I'm surprised Eric Holder hasn't brought the State of Arizona up on charges of inciting this obvious hate crime since the victim was "armed" with an Arizona Iced Tea, clearly the most racist of all teas.
Dude, he had Skittles, the least racist of all candies, they are literally a RAINBOW of candy.
Then again, I don't automatically see Zimmerman shooting Martin as a case of a WHITE-hispanic shooting a defenseless BLACK CHILD armed only with Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea who was just walking home from the convenience store, presumably wanting a snack after finishing his Bible study and taking care of injured kittens.
Give poor Trayvon a break. He went to the store simply because he had cotton mouth and the munchies.
Dude, he had Skittles, the least racist of all candies, they are literally a RAINBOW of candy.
Brad
See?!?! Sweet, young, innocent Trayvon was even trying to mend bridges of tension with Arizona by bringing them together with the all inclusive Skittles to show them we are all just a shade in the rainbow. Truly his selfless works to make the world a better place knew no bounds.
I hear the Vatican is calling for an express review for declaring his Sainthoodie. The peaceful joining of racist Arizona Iced Tea and multicultural Skittles is already proof of his first miracle. Henceforth, he should be referred to as The Blessed Trayvon™ until his canonization is complete.
(I wonder how long until the MSM picks up on this and posts it as "news"? )
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 04-10-2012).]
With all the animosity coming from the black community, with the apparent backing of the president himself, I am amazed his council stayed on as long as he did. There is no doubt in my mind that given time, the bountry on Zimmerman's head will expand to include all those who try and defend him. Sadly, after the attacks made on Zimmerman, his best defense is going to Fox or some other non-left wing news organization and having them air his side of the story. The court of public opinion is invaluable, but has so far been mislead courtesy of the skewed facts info presented by the left wing media, . Here's hoping Zimmerman is able to finally get some coverage of his version of the story, and also that FOX has the balls to blown open the doors on true life of skittle munching thug-lite Trayvon.
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 04-10-2012).]
I'm curious about the Lawyers quitting, but Zimmerman referred to them as "advisers", not lawyers. Perhaps he got upset because they wouldn't tell his side of things (a wise mood legally) and wanted to speak out.
For all we know he already has another lawyer, would the old lawyers know?
Brad
Edit to add: I'm really wondering right now what kind of lawyer would quit after not hearing from their client for a day and a few hours, there has to be more to the story, I understand he talked to the special prosecutor without them, is that enough? SHYSTER WE NEED YOUR INPUT!!!
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 04-10-2012).]
I can' believe you actually listened to that press interview, Loafer?? They said they haven't heard from MISTER Zimmerman since Sunday, and can't continue to represent a client who doesn't liase with them. IMHO, this discussion here has completely derailed . Some people on BOTH 'sides'here are basing their comments on what is, basically, nonsense! It has devolved into a verbal brawl, quite honestly; a brawl of rhetoric, guesswork, NO real information at ALL, 'favouritism', and MORE rhetoric.There is NO real foundation for EITHER side to believe they are 'winning' the brawl! So the youth who was killed wore a 'hoodie' (A fashion trend throughout most of the Western World, frequently worn by people who want to appear to be tough, mean and threatening, OR just 'with it'...which was it?,) had a set of gold teeth implanted, and APPEARED to ONE PERSON to be acting suspiciously. On the other hand, we have a man who adopted the mantle of being Neighbourhood Watch. Why him? Did he have the same desire to look 'mean, tough and threatening'? Or was he a decent human being trying to protect his neighbourhood from crime? WE DON'T KNOW!! If there had not been a crime reported BEFORE Mr. Zimmerman took to the streets (for whatEVER reason), then he should have simply reported his suspicions to the Police, and agreed to wait somewhere to meet them and identify the person whom he considered to be 'suspicious'. Instead, he became 'The Lone Ranger', on a mission to get his man...even though his man was NOT his 'man' at the time....because he hadn't DONE anything...yet... and ended up not doing anything anyway...because he was dead. We can listen all we want, to Media feeds, which, quite frankly, are biased for financial gain: they couldn't give a DAMN about the truth, so long as they SELL STORIES .Quite honestly, this has begun to sound like the verbal melée one might have encountered 100 years ago, round the foot of the gallows, with both sides wanting to hang the other side's guy.
The way it has developed HERE, is exactly what the Media want EVERYWHERE. THEY are WINNING!! NOBODY ELSE If G. Zimmerman ends up being vindicated, the Media rebel-rousing for his arrest will change their stance, no doubt, and start saying 'nice' things about him...and if G.Zimmerman ends up being charged, and convicted, then once again...they will be 'right all along' ...and made a packet ANYWAY.
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-10-2012).]
What's this about?? Zimmerman's attorneys just withdrew themselves from his case.
That is really weird and if Zimmerman called the prosecutor directly, that has to be one of the most bone-headed choices any potential defendant could make. There's no way that can help him. It makes me wonder about his current mental state and if the pressure of living in hiding in fear of his life in addition to the stress of the shooting is taking a toll on his judgement.
It's a wild card at this point. If we hear tomorrow that Zimmerman committed suicide, it wouldn't surprise me. Nor would it if he was just hiring other counsel that hasn't come forward yet.
I really hope the rhetoric, media, and calls for violence tone down long enough for the truth to come out, whatever that may be. I don't keep much hope that it's possible anymore.
Originally posted by fierofetish: Some people on BOTH 'sides'here are basing their comments on what is, basically, nonsense!
I agree completely.
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish: we have a man who adopted the mantle of being Neighbourhood Watch. Why him?
Why do you say "adopted the mantle?" According to the Home Owner's Assoc. where he lived, he was elected Neighborhood Watch Captain by the HOA.
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish: Did he have the same desire to look 'mean, tough and threatening'? Or was he a decent human being trying to protect his neighbourhood from crime? WE DON'T KNOW!!
Again, according to the HOA, he was considered the "go to" guy for any concerns about the string of recent robberies in the area. He was the point of contact between the Police and the Neighborhood Watch. (again, this is according to information from the HOA that's been published - it's just as "alleged" as any other "evidence" we've seen)
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish: If there had not been a crime reported BEFORE Mr. Zimmerman took to the streets (for whatEVER reason),
There had been a series of several robberies/burglaries recently according to various news reports.
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish: then he should have simply reported his suspicions to the Police, and agreed to wait somewhere to meet them and identify the person whom he considered to be 'suspicious'. Instead, he became 'The Lone Ranger', on a mission to get his man...even though his man was NOT his 'man' at the time....because he hadn't DONE anything...yet... and ended up not doing anything anyway...because he was dead.
Irrelevant if there had been previous crimes - which reports say there had been. It's your assertion he became "The Lone Ranger."
I'm not trying to argue, but wish to point out that even if you're trying to be fair and non-biased, you're still drawing conclusions based on the very media you're saying is biased. (as I admit, my counter-points are also from other sources of the same media, which makes you wonder which, if either, is accurate)
If G. Zimmerman ends up being vindicated, the Media rebel-rousing for his arrest will change their stance, no doubt, and start saying 'nice' things about him...and if G.Zimmerman ends up being charged, and convicted, then once again...they will be 'right all along' ...and made a packet ANYWAY.
I think you are wrong on this point as the OJ trial is a good example.. It divided the country mostly along racial lines and many people COULD NOT accept the NOT Guilty verdict. The ones that said he did it didn't apologize so please don't expect that with Mr. Z. I admit that I made up my mind of his guilt very early based on the bronco scene and the FACTS in the trial didn't change my mind.
People are going to beleive their intepretation based on their understanding of the Laws.
I understand Castle Doctorine but can't grasp the "stand your ground" law as it relates to this case. My understanding is in line with the Lead dective in the case... MANSLAUGTER
I just don't get how you can admit killing an unarmed person not in the commision of a crime on the street and don't get in BIG trouble. Dats some
Originally posted by nosrac: I just don't get how you can admit killing an unarmed person not in the commision of a crime on the street and don't get in BIG trouble. Dats some
Oh, let me help you out.
If a guy is on top of me, pounding my head into the pavement, and I have a gun on me. I will pull it out and shoot him. Simple.
As hard as it is for some people to understand, assault is a crime, committing assault...wait for this.... is committing a crime. [omg Brad, you just blew my mind.]
People really need to stop pushing other cases in this, all you are doing is muddying the water, and creating confusion. I'm not sure if it's on purpose, but it's certainly working.
If a guy is on top of me, pounding my head into the pavement, and I have a gun on me. I will pull it out and shoot him. Simple.
Really simple huh, Why don't you just do that and see if it lands you in the pokey or if you get to walk free. Try this, go to the "hood" and be sure to take a gun. I'm sure there are plenty of suspicious people, up to no good. Pick the one that has a criminal past and start yelling racial slurs and provoke him into assulting you. when he starts to royally spankin that azz, only then shoot and kill him and then claim self defence as you obviously feared for your life from this criminal.
quote
As hard as it is for some people to understand, assault is a crime, committing assault...wait for this.... is committing a crime. [omg Brad, you just blew my mind.]
Why are you sooo sure that Zimmerman didn't do anything to provoke or start the altercation? Everything he said is the Truth the whole truth and nuthin but the truth, right? Do you assume, "Without NO provocation, Martin just cheap shot Mr Z and then started pounding his head into the pavement?" The one who STARTS the altercation is the assulting party, NOT the one who's getting the smackdown.
Ever heard of battered woman syndrome ? Even they get arrested and have a trial?
quote
People really need to stop pushing other cases in this, all you are doing is muddying the water, and creating confusion. I'm not sure if it's on purpose, but it's certainly working.
Brad
I'll STFU if you STFU, as I see it. "all you are doing is muddying the water, and creating confusion. I'm not sure if it's on purpose, but it's certainly working. "
Why are you sooo sure that Zimmerman didn't do anything to provoke or start the altercation?
Why are you so sure he did? From what I've heard on the various 911 tapes, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was returning to his truck when Martin confronted him.
This has been said over and over and over, but the entire case depends on who started hostile action. If Zimmerman walked up and asked him what he was up to, that's not being hostile. If Zimmerman started shouting racial slurs, that could be considered hostile. Hate speech isn't protected speech. If Zimmerman pulled out his gun and brandished it or pointed it at Martin, that's hostile. From what we think we know Martin punched Zimmerman and was banging his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman had every right to use lethal force to defend himself from that attack - UNLESS it was Zimmerman that started hostile action.
There has to be proof Zimmerman initiated hostile action. Where's the proof? Following someone or calling 911 on them isn't hostile.
One alleged report says Martin approached Zimmerman and asked Zimmerman why he was following him. He asked Zimmerman if he "had a problem" to which Zimmerman replied "No" and Martin then said "Well you do now." and punched him in the face. *IF* that's how it played out, Zimmerman was well within legal right to use deadly force to defend himself.
From what I've heard on the various 911 tapes, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was returning to his truck when Martin confronted him.
This has been said over and over and over, but the entire case depends on who started hostile action. If Zimmerman walked up and asked him what he was up to, that's not being hostile. If Zimmerman started shouting racial slurs, that could be considered hostile. Hate speech isn't protected speech. If Zimmerman pulled out his gun and brandished it or pointed it at Martin, that's hostile. From what we think we know Martin punched Zimmerman and was banging his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman had every right to use lethal force to defend himself from that attack - UNLESS it was Zimmerman that started hostile action.
There has to be proof Zimmerman initiated hostile action. Where's the proof? Following someone or calling 911 on them isn't hostile.
One alleged report says Martin approached Zimmerman and asked Zimmerman why he was following him. He asked Zimmerman if he "had a problem" to which Zimmerman replied "No" and Martin then said "Well you do now." and punched him in the face. *IF* that's how it played out, Zimmerman was well within legal right to use deadly force to defend himself.
I agree with everything except.... ->"Zimmerman was well within legal right to use deadly force to defend himself" as I BELIEVE he gave that up that right when he chased Martin. I'm not sure about you but a stranger chasing me at night is an act of aggression. Don't you watch any scary movies like Friday the 13th?
I agree with everything except.... ->"Zimmerman was well within legal right to use deadly force to defend himself" as I BELIEVE he gave that up that right when he chased Martin. I'm not sure about you but a stranger chasing me at night is an act of aggression. Don't you watch any scary movies like Friday the 13th?
Define "chase." Does that mean Martin is running in fear and Zimmerman is running after him? That would have to be proven. "Following" does not mean the same thing as "chasing" someone. Following is not an act of aggression, especially in his role as Neighborhood Watch. Again, there are reports that he lost sight of Martin and was returning to his vehicle when the altercation happened. If so, he was not "chasing" him.
If Zimmerman was chasing him and that can be proven and the court rules that is considered a hostile action where he forfeits his right to self-defense, then he may be guilty. But you have to be able to prove it. The burden of proof is on the State, not Zimmerman.
F88... "Why do you say "adopted the mantle?" According to the Home Owner's Assoc. where he lived, he was elected Neighborhood Watch Captain by the HOA. "
I would assume that he put himself forward for the position, rather than they selected him at random? and I believe I read here somewhere that there were no other volunteers, and so, by accepting that position he 'adopted the mantle'. Nick
. Some people on BOTH 'sides'here are basing their comments on what is, basically, nonsense! It has devolved into a verbal brawl, quite honestly; a brawl of rhetoric, guesswork, NO real information at ALL, 'favouritism', and MORE rhetoric.There is NO real foundation for EITHER side to believe they are 'winning' the brawl! 
