Not true at all. Right now it's a claim by one side of the court. It has not been proven in court.
Brad
I consider the initial confrontation to be when Martin saw Zimmerman and fled. Both aware of the other and a reaction. As far as actually making contact, I don’t know anything for sure but I think the case for Trayvon the victim is weak.
I consider the initial confrontation to be when Martin saw Zimmerman and fled. Both aware of the other and a reaction. As far as actually making contact, I don’t know anything for sure but I think the case for Trayvon the victim is weak.
Your opinion doesn't make it a fact though. That's all I am saying.
And the "initial confrontation" according to your post would be when Martin walked up to Zimmerman, while Zimmerman was on the phone with the Police. Or have we forgot about that part already?
The couple had been married more than 65 years, had six children and 18 grandchildren. They were great, great, great grandparents.
Bob Strait was a paratrooper in World War II. He was with the 101st airborne and was part of the D-day invasion. He was awarded the Bronze Star.
Nancy grew up in a log cabin in Kenwood, Oklahoma with no running water. She moved to Tulsa to work during the war.
As for the Straits' children, their focus is on the love their parents shared and helping their father cope.
That guy sounds like a total bad-ass... I really hate to hear about what happened to him. That generation is known as the greatest generation, and they were... these guys fell all overthemselves to sign up and join the fight against the Axis of Evil.
Thom Hartmann is an American radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur, and liberal political commentator. His nationally-syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, has 2.75 million listeners a week. Hartmann is the poster child for the 40-year-old advertising campaign “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste.”
Looking for someone to blame for the Trayvon Martin shooting, other than the person who shot him, Hartmann indicts the usual suspects:
The so called stand your ground and shoot first laws, brought to you by the NRA and Wal-Mart, peddled to state legislators — Republican state legislators — by the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC, funded by the Koch brothers. That’s pretty amazing, when you see a fairly direct line from right-wing billionaires funding front groups that are actually writing our nation’s laws to a dead kid in Florida.
So who was responsible for gang deaths, black-on-black crime, and drive-by shootings before the Stand Your Ground law was passed? Why can’t the person who owns a gun be the one responsible for how the gun is used? Just because a person carries a gun does not mean he or she is going to use it.
By the way, Stand Your Ground Laws are not new or found only in Florida.
Every day in America millions of guns sit unused. It’s not the fault of guns or the fault of people who support the Second Amendment that people are killed by guns. For example, gang-related deaths “result from grudges between rival gangs that erupt into violence, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” Is Wal-Mart to blame? Maybe if these gang members got jobs at Wal-Mart they wouldn’t be killing one another.
Who’s responsible for the two British tourists who were shot dead in Sarasota, Florida, last year? The teen suspect, who has since been convicted, had been arrested earlier on a charge of aggravated assault with a handgun. Did the David and Charles Koch, who fund conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States, put the gun in his hand and force him to squeeze the trigger?
And what about the “Stand Your Ground Law” that was passed in Florida? Hartmann blames its passage on “Republican state legislators.” Here’s the truth as reported by David Martosko at the Daily Caller:
Despite liberal protesters’ claims that Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” gun law demonstrates that Republican policymakers are responsible for the February death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an analysis of its legislative history shows that it was a bipartisan effort — and that no Florida Democratic state senator voted against it.
One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39–0.
The Florida House vote was 92–20. Twelve Democrats voted in favor.
We have no idea if the Stand Your Ground Law had anything to do with Trayvon Martin’s death.
Some more "facts" on the stand your ground law. -Insert conspiracy theories being spouted by the liberal media-
So that's how you are going to play it then. Post slanted BS, or outright lies, and as soon as someone says something about it you post something else. You can't win the argument with honesty, or by using the truth so you are going to throw crap against the wall until something sticks.
The hoopla over the Stand Your Ground law is just a diversion to use this tragedy to further an anti-gun agenda. Whether Zimmerman legally shot Martin or not is not dependent on the Stand Your Ground law. If Zimmerman's story is proven true and Martin was indeed attacking him, Zimmerman was within his legal right to shoot even before the SYG law was passed. ALL it did was remove the requirement to try and flee before responding with force. In Zimmerman's case, if Martin was on top of him banging his head on the ground, Zimmerman couldn't flee and was in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
Yes, that depends on the trial agreeing with Zimmerman's version of events. If Martin never made any aggressive moves and Zimmerman just shot The Blessed Trayvon™ for wearing a Hoodie and carrying Skittles, then he's guilty of a homicide - either under the SYG law or before it was passed.
It's not about Zimmerman being racist. Whether he profiled Martin or not is irrelevant to the homicide. The only concern about racism should be in how the Sanford Police handled the initial investigation. If there was enough evidence to pursue a 2nd Degree Murder charge and they didn't press any charges, that brings up questions about the Police Dept., not Zimmerman.
So that's how you are going to play it then. Post slanted BS, or outright lies, and as soon as someone says something about it you post something else. You can't win the argument with honesty, or by using the truth so you are going to throw crap against the wall until something sticks.
Brad
What you call BS or outright lies others may call the truth. I posted the article because of the title for this thread and felt it was appropriate to bring it full circle. The stand your ground law has nothing to do with shooting first, as implied by the nickname some have given this law. Zimmerman is facing a trial because of how he instigated the incident. The court will now determine if his actions provoked the incident and if he had the right to defend himself because of them. It was determined that there was enough evidence to arrest him and to bring him to trial for his actions. Now it will be up to a judge and jury to determine if what he did was legal, not some lynch mob carrying pitchforks and a racial axe to grind. Justice will be served.
Well Well Well. I see just about every body here believes the lame stream media. they got it wrong from the start. first it was a white guy. then he chased him down and just shot him because he had a hoody. The the only pic they show of martin is one were he is 12 or 13 years old. So go ahead and jump the gun. Yes I think this should not have happened .no he should not have a a gun on neighborhood watch those 2 things there should have him in jail. But to believe the media the same media that only tells story's it wants to . with a history of lying . Well there are a lot of people that are going to have egg on other face. And I do not think for one minute this was about race . I do think it was a man with a gun who wanted to be a hero and went about it the the wrong way .
[This message has been edited by DANH (edited 04-13-2012).]
What you call BS or outright lies others may call the truth. I posted the article because of the title for this thread and felt it was appropriate to bring it full circle. The stand your ground law has nothing to do with shooting first, as implied by the nickname some have given this law. Zimmerman is facing a trial because of how he instigated the incident. The court will now determine if his actions provoked the incident and if he had the right to defend himself because of them. It was determined that there was enough evidence to arrest him and to bring him to trial for his actions. Now it will be up to a judge and jury to determine if what he did was legal, not some lynch mob carrying pitchforks and a racial axe to grind. Justice will be served.
And if he is found not guilty the mob will still kill him. Because people keep spreading rumors that are obviously not true, just like you are doing.
Brad
Edit to add: And those people calling that crap the truth? I hope at the very least they are lying to themselves, and not just spreading crap around because they like to incite violence.
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 04-13-2012).]
Initially this was a "stand your ground" case, but if Zimmerman was attacked and being beaten, that claim is moot. It becomes a clear case of self defense.
Lets play "Catch the bias", a fun little game I just made up, here is the story of a "long march" (40 miles spread over 3 days) through what is apparently they most actively racist part of the "deep south". (Daytona Beach to Sanford)
On the march to Sanford
quote
Joe Richard describes the journey he made with other "Dream Defenders" on a three-day march across central Florida to protest the murder of Trayvon Martin.
April 11, 2012
Demonstrators on the march from Daytona Beach to Sanford pause by the side of the highwayDemonstrators on the march from Daytona Beach to Sanford pause by the side of the highway
I DIDN'T know what to expect when I arrived in the town of Daytona Beach, Fla., on a hot and muggy Friday afternoon last week.
I knew I was joining a multiracial group of students and youth who shared the same outrage over the racist killing of Trayvon Martin, and that we would march 40 or so miles to Sanford, spread out over three days. But I didn't know what to expect along the way or once we arrived in Sanford. This past weekend would turn out to be one of the most inspiring and radicalizing experiences of my life.
After an initial meeting and prayer led by some of the march's organizers, we set out from the campus of Bethune-Cookman University, one of Florida's historically Black colleges, and began the long march to Sanford, located in the interior of the state.
Almost immediately, the feeling of solidarity and camaraderie began to develop among the marchers, who, with little else to do but walk and talk for the next three days, quickly became friends. It was truly remarkable to be treading through the brutal heat along the side of a winding Florida state highway with such a diverse group of people.
Considering the heavily drawn color line in the South that consigns communities to segregated existences, this was one of the longest times that many of us had ever spent in a thoroughly integrated setting, both Black and white. And the group was truly representative of our generation: Black and white, Latino, Asian and even Palestinian. It was also remarkable how far many people had travelled to take part in the march--from Amsterdam and Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City.
The Struggle Against Racism | Collected articles from SocialistWorker.org
We trudged down isolated stretches of highway, with only the beating sun and swaying pine forests as the witnesses to our trek. We marched through sleepy little Southern towns, chanting and singing all the way down Main Street, with curious bystanders and eager supporters coming out of little shops and onto front porches to wave and cheer us on. Members of Occupy Daytona Beach and Occupy DeLand--who knew that the Occupy movement had invaded even such remote little places?--came out to march with us on different legs of the trip.
We also marched past silent onlookers, with their hardened faces betraying unspoken hostility. Men drove past us in pickup trucks, waving confederate flags or yelling "****** " and "white power" through their open windows, with voices full of hate. While the majority of the reactions we received were positive, the others were enough to dispel any notion someone might have of the U.S. as a "post-racial" society.
But there were also the Black families who passed us--and turned around and pulled over to take pictures with us and thank us for marching through. Honking cars rolled by, with an outstretched Black arm clenched into a fist of support.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE LONG conversations along the route were full of politics, ranging from whether we could start a new civil rights movement in the U.S. to the struggle for Palestine. We talked about the history of racism in the South, the civil rights movement, the history of racist police killings, stories from movements and campaigns past. All of us knew that we were battling something far bigger than just the case of Trayvon Martin.
We slept each night in beautiful African Methodist Episcopalian churches along our route, full of warm, welcoming and generous members of the congregation who fed us heartily and gave us tubs of hot water and salt for our tortured feet. Every church was nestled in the middle of the local Black community, amid empty and rundown homes, shuttered businesses and huddled groups of men out of work, a grim reminder of the brutal impact of the economic recession and the longstanding effects of racism in our society.
On the third day of the march, thirsty for more cold water and rest for our blistered and sore feet, we called a break within sight of an isolated gas station on a deserted stretch of highway. As the first of us made it through the front door of the store, the terrified owner saw our mostly Black crew and came running. He slammed the door behind us and insisted that only three people be allowed inside at a time, suspicious that we would ransack his store.
One of the march organizers, who was part of the group inside, insisted that he let the rest of us in, because we weren't going to steal anything. But the owner would have none of it. We marched out, deciding we didn't need to buy any water or snacks from a bigoted storeowner.
The marchers milled about in front of the store, simmering with anger and tweeting about the experience to news agencies covering our story, as the storeowner locked the front doors and posted his "Closed" sign in the window. Some minutes later, after realizing his store would appear on the evening news for refusing to serve a group of mostly Black college students, the owner came out and offered an absurd excuse and apology, in an effort to gain the business of the marchers. But we didn't accept and proceeded on again, with fresh determination and anger brewing in our stomachs.
One of the interesting things about the march was how it represented the new generation's use of social media, but also how it reached into the past for useful practices from movements that came before us.
The organizers were constantly asking marchers to tweet and update their Facebook pages along the route, to gain a larger following. Indeed, with major media outlets following our tweets, it proved to be a useful tactic to gain publicity. Many of the people in attendance heard about the march through Facebook and other means on the Internet.
However, the relatively small size of our contingent--25 to 40 were there for the entirety of the march--bespoke the weaknesses of pure social media "organizing," because good old-fashioned outreach through phone calls and conversations might have brought out a larger number.
As well, before the march started, one of the organizers told the assembled group that this wasn't "our grandparents' movement" and that we shouldn't carry picket signs or banners and we shouldn't chant or sing "old negro spirituals." As it turned out, these prohibitions were abandoned almost immediately. Marchers quickly started chanting and rewriting old movement songs with new lyrics to speak to the Trayvon Martin case. And we acquired a "We Are Trayvon Martin" banner and picket signs to carry.
There's something powerful about people's voices raised together in song or chants--it symbolizes the unity of the marchers, sets the pace for marching and revives people's energy and spirits when they feel exhausted and begin to dwell on the pain in their feet. One of the best songs was set to the tune of "As The Saints Go Marching In":
When Zimmerman Gets arrested, Oh, when Zimmerman gets arrested, Oh, how I long to be on that jury, When Zimmerman gets arrested.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WE FINALLY reached Sanford, marching through the hottest day of the weekend and making the streets ring with our chants and songs. News had reached us the day before that an armed neo-Nazi group was patrolling the streets of the city to "protect the white citizenry from race riots," and many people were tense about what we would face.
The media were waiting for us downtown, filming our procession as we reached deep down inside ourselves for the energy to shout, chant and sing our loudest yet. After speeches and more bluffing on the part of Sanford's city manager, we boarded a bus that would take us to the scene of the crime--the spot where Trayvon was gunned down unarmed, supposedly after "threatening" George Zimmerman.
None of us were ready for what we were about to see. The bus let us off in front of an elementary school, where, across the street, the town's only "memorial" to Trayvon Martin stood. It consisted of a school zone traffic sign, surrounded by a pile of stuffed animals, carnations, cans of tea, bags of Skittles, handwritten letters parched by the sun and pictures of a young man cut down in the flower of his youth.
The marchers held hands around the memorial, some no doubt wondering how this could be all that was left to honor a young man who was living and breathing, while his killer walks free. Many of us lost control of our emotions and let our tears run freely, standing around what really was a monument to the hypocrisy of America.
Our bus let us off again in the middle of the Goldsboro community in Sanford, a Black neighborhood which sheltered the church where we would stay. We lined up in threes, locked arms and marched as best we could down the street to the church, singing with voices now full of pain and sadness.
The entire neighborhood came out by the hundreds, waving, cheering and singing along with us, falling into our lines and linking arms with us as we hobbled toward the church. It was an incredible thing to be treated to a hero's welcome by a community that had gone through so much in this past month or so. Many from the neighborhood attended the mass meeting that night in the church and pledged to join us the next day in our planned civil disobedience.
The next morning, we left the church and solemnly marched through Goldsboro again, winding our way through a community devastated by poverty and unemployment to the front steps of the bright- and shining-new, expensive and enormous police station in the middle of the neighborhood--the perfect emblem of what Michelle Alexander refers to as the "new Jim Crow."
A group of volunteers from among our number donned hoodies and kneeled down on the front steps of the station, blocking the entrance and effectively shutting down the building. Fearful of attracting further media scrutiny, the police locked the doors and refused to arrest anyone, allowing their public operation to be closed for the day.
At the end of the day, the marchers would have to part ways to head back to their respective cities and homes. It was with heavy hearts that we bid each other goodbye, exchanging numbers and e-mail addresses and arranging a time for us all to discuss the march and make future plans. All of us committed to moving forward with the fight to win justice for Trayvon's family.
Before we all said goodbye, I had the thought that the best memorial we could ever construct for Trayvon--and all of the other Trayvons in the world--would be to build another mighty movement for equality, with so much power and clout that we could win justice in every case of racist violence and police brutality, one that could ultimately destroy the pernicious inequality and racism in our society and make one anew.
Certainly the people who marched those hard 40 miles are made of the right stuff. Now we just need to get started.
OK, who really buys this crap? I liked how one person said "the group was truly representative of our generation: Black and white, Latino, Asian and even Palestinian." and the next person says "a group of mostly Black college students" no spin at all.
The last story I heard, Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and was returning to his car when Martin jumped him from the back knocking him down and beat his head on the sidewalk. Jury will have to figure out who was lying.
On a brighter side, anyone else think Zimmermans judge is hot.... She looks like a model.
The hoopla over the Stand Your Ground law is just a diversion to use this tragedy to further an anti-gun agenda.
I agree, but its being used for far more than that. Just wait until this fall when its used to influence the elections.
Never let a good manufactured crisis go to waste.
Now while i do feel its was a sad event that took place, its was just one of 1000's across the country that went unnoticed. Some were actually worthy of the attention of the press as they were far more egregious, some were not and should have remained a local issue ( like this ).
But be careful, shes liable to be trashed in the press as having a bias towards men or something and let him get off easy and try to destroy her career.. ( ya, im cynical )
The last story I heard, Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and was returning to his car when Martin jumped him from the back knocking him down and beat his head on the sidewalk. Jury will have to figure out who was lying.
On a brighter side, anyone else think Zimmermans judge is hot.... She looks like a model.
Yep, on both counts. I saw the judge on the news this morning and thought the same thing. She's pretty tasty. She may have to recuse herself though, apparently some possible conflict involving her husband. I guess the decision is being left to defense counsel.
... he should not have a a gun on neighborhood watch those 2 things there should have him in jail....
Show us the law that prohibits that? There isn't one. That there is just anti-rights BS.
Furthermore, he was in an area that was having major crime problems, carrying a gun for protection ( with a permit of course, which he has ) while out and about would be a totally acceptable behavior, to any rational American.
Did not say it broke any laws . Just that if he was on watch his main job was to watch the area and report it to the police. and observe. I just asked my self why care a gun. but then again I don`t know the area or have a truthful info on the night in question . Now if it were in Detroit were I lived for 50 some years . It would be stupid if you did not carry. So thee you go different part of the country different rules. I have sense moved out of Detroit and into the country. I am a former Marine and I do strongly believe in protecting your self with any means at your disposal. I really do not know all the facts in this case to even give a reasonable answer .How can you get truthful info from the news media that we have in this country to day. The Media to day is about pushing what they think is a worth story or pushing the way of thinking. Lord forbid if any body says or does any thing to prove there view wrong .YOU WILL NOT HEAR A WORD OF NEGATIVE POINT IN CASE PREZ- O. AND ONE MORE THING WHILE IT IS ON MY MINE. I HAVE NO TRUST OR FAITH IN THE PEOPLE RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. THESE ARE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY DOWN YEARS AGO AND LET ME AND OTHER VIET NAM VETS OUT TO DRY. SO I SAY GET THE FACTS AND DO NOT TRUST THE MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY TO DAY OR THE PEOPLE RUNNING IT . BECAUSE WHEN THEY GET THERE WAY YOU WILL SEE HOW MUCH THEY REALLY HAVE YOUR CONCERNS AT HEART. MOST MEDIA ARE OWNED BY LARGE COMPANY'S THAT HAVE THERE OWN MATTERS AT HEART. LOOK AT MSNBC.NBC AND OTHERS OWN BY GE AND HOWS ON ONE OF THE PREZ-O`S BOARS THE CEO AND PREZ OF GE JEFF BABY. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK THERE GOING TO REPORT. BUT DO NOT BELIEVE OR TRUST ME DON`T JUST SET Back and JUST listen to them. research for your self yea it`s work to find the truth but you will stand on your own . not some one else who more then likely is ling or should I say bending the truth. do you really think they have your best interest at heart. It is all about them So wake up. YOU ARE SEEING IT IN THIS STORY RIGHT NOW AND THERE IS MORE TO COME THIS YEAR THEY WANT O BACK IN sO THEY CAN COMPLETELY TAKE THIS COUNTRY DOWN. nuff said.
The only reason to "be in jail" is by breaking a law, so your ludicrous statement that he should have been in jail for the act of carrying his sidearm implied breaking a law. That is, unless you feel people should be jailed just because you disagree with what they are doing at the time?
Oh, and try kicking the habit of posting like Stan. It makes your post nearly impossible to comprehend.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 04-14-2012).]
one I did not know you were a instructor on writing and to if you took my statement to mean it is unlawful to care it did not . I do not know of one watch program that allows it`s members to carry. and I do not copy anybody's way of posting. And who in the heck is Stan anyway. I sorry that you can not comprehend my post I can.hey hey .just got a lot to say .
Originally posted by DANH: I do not know of one watch program that allows it`s members to carry.
Lets get something straight. It does not matter one bit if a "Watch Program" allows it's members to carry or not. A watch program does not and can not overwrite "LAW". If a person holds a legally obtained concealed carry permit then said person can "Legally" carry in any place alllowed by "LAW".
let me get this straight I have no problem with that at all. I did not say that all watch programs t restrict gun some do I do not know if his does. If his watch program does not allow fire arm even if he does have a carry ccw then he some respect those rules. that all I am saying and that my view . And that would nopt be a crime just bre3aking a rule he agree to
Originally posted by DANH: . I do not know of one watch program that allows it`s members to carry. and I do not copy anybody's way of posting. And who in the heck is Stan anyway. I sorry that you can not comprehend my post I can.hey hey .just got a lot to say .
As has been posted MANY TIMES BEFORE. According to Zimmerman's Father he was not patrolling the neighborhood, but getting in his vehicle to go to the Grocery store.
So, lets recap, he wasn't on duty (as stated by his Father), and was instead going to the store. HE WAS A VOLUNTEER ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH AND WAS NOT ON "PATROL" AT THE TIME.
HE WAS A VOLUNTEER ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH AND WAS NOT ON "PATROL" AT THE TIME.
So who was supposed to be on patrol then? Better yet, how many actually belonged to this neighborhood watch and actually patrolled the neighborhood? Hint: the answer has been in all the news stories about this.
quote
And if he is found not guilty the mob will still kill him. Because people keep spreading rumors that are obviously not true, just like you are doing.
Brad
Edit to add: And those people calling that crap the truth? I hope at the very least they are lying to themselves, and not just spreading crap around because they like to incite violence.
What rumors I'm I spreading? What mob is going to kill him? All people wanted was for him to be arrested and brought before justice in a court of law to determine what really happened. This is happening right now and yet YOU are the one predicting doom and gloom. Those predictions have little chance of happening now that things are calming down and the race baiters have turned off the drum beating. Weren't you unhappy because you wanted the truth to come out? You should be happy now that this can become a reality with an upcoming trial.
quote
Originally posted by twofatguys I can see I'm not going to get the truth already. It's all emotional bs.
Maybe you should follow your own advice.
quote
I understand it's hard to find an unbiased story, and I'm not blaming anyone here for it, just asking that people step back and look at things from a different angle than is being forced on you.
Brad
Especially when you seem to see racists everywhere you look.
one I did not know you were a instructor on writing and to if you took my statement to mean it is unlawful to care it did not . I do not know of one watch program that allows it`s members to carry. and I do not copy anybody's way of posting. And who in the heck is Stan anyway. I sorry that you can not comprehend my post I can.hey hey .just got a lot to say .
So what if a watch program prohibits it? Watch programs don't enact laws or have special powers, they are private citizens watching out for their neighbors. Nothing more nothing less.
Writing/grammar Instructor? Not in the least, it was just kind advice that if you want to get your point across it would help to improve it some. But if you don't want to effectively communicate and have your points dismissed before they are even read, then that is your choice.
As has been posted MANY TIMES BEFORE. According to Zimmerman's Father he was not patrolling the neighborhood, but getting in his vehicle to go to the Grocery store.
So, lets recap, he wasn't on duty (as stated by his Father), and was instead going to the store. HE WAS A VOLUNTEER ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH AND WAS NOT ON "PATROL" AT THE TIME.
Brad
To me, his 'working status' isn't even relevant in this case, he has a right to protect himself, and his neighborhood, at any time of day or night.. now was he simply protecting or not, is a big part of what the court case is about, but i don't feel that him being "off-duty" should factor in at all.
What rumors I'm I spreading? What mob is going to kill him? All people wanted was for him to be arrested and brought before justice in a court of law to determine what really happened. This is happening right now and yet YOU are the one predicting doom and gloom. Those predictions have little chance of happening now that things are calming down and the race baiters have turned off the drum beating. Weren't you unhappy because you wanted the truth to come out? You should be happy now that this can become a reality with an upcoming trial.
I also have to disagree with this, as i personally saw calls for his head on a platter as they had already convicted him. Sure, not all people were calling for his execution, but some were. It was also not just the Black Panther morons, but regular folk. Some even here in my city were calling for 'street justice' and refused to wait to hear all the facts first and let the police ( and now jury ) do their jobs.
I also still see race bating on TV 'news' as well. But yes, it has calmed down somewhat.
Lets get something straight. It does not matter one bit if a "Watch Program" allows it's members to carry or not. A watch program does not and can not overwrite "LAW". If a person holds a legally obtained concealed carry permit then said person can "Legally" carry in any place alllowed by "LAW".
Nor do you have to be a member of some formal 'watch program' in order to have 'permission' to keep an eye on your neighborhood, question suspicious outsiders ( especially in a gated community, where there is no public access in the first place ), and contact the police to report suspicious activities.
Actually, i feel its ones duty to be aware, and i have reported more than one suspicious car sitting in odd places, or kids milling around a vacant house. one evening we ran across a abandoned bike in the park, and it was reported. We don't have anything formal here, but as good citizens/neighbors we do watch each others backs, so to speak.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 04-14-2012).]
I also have to disagree with this, as i personally saw calls for his head on a platter as they had already convicted him. Sure, not all people were calling for his execution, but some were. It was also not just the Black Panther morons, but regular folk. Some even here in my city were calling for 'street justice' and refused to wait to hear all the facts first and let the police ( and now jury ) do their jobs.
I also still see race bating on TV 'news' as well. But yes, it has calmed down somewhat.
DO you also see idiots on the other side? The ones who claim to "know" Martins past and "know" he was a "thug. punk, lowlife, drug addict" , "got what he deserved"...etc.?
IMO...As with most things there are the fringes that garner attention by some, some even like to paint a whole "side" using the most extreme examples. Look at most political discussions on here!
I'm glad it's going to trial and no matter what the outcome I hope it's the correct one.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-14-2012).]
Nor do you have to be a member of some formal 'watch program' in order to have 'permission' to keep an eye on your neighborhood, question suspicious outsiders ( especially in a gated community, where there is no public access in the first place ), and contact the police to report suspicious activities.
Actually, i feel its ones duty to be aware, and i have reported more than one suspicious car sitting in odd places, or kids milling around a vacant house. one evening we ran across a abandoned bike in the park, and it was reported. We don't have anything formal here, but as good citizens/neighbors we do watch each others backs, so to speak.
Ahhhhhh Freedom! jk.... it's an unfortunate reality and necessity to do those things in many cases. Sad but true.
no he should not have a a gun on neighborhood watch those 2 things there should have him in jail.
So what is your legal justification for saying he should be in jail based on legally carrying a gun on neighborhood watch? (ignoring for the moment that he wasn't "on neighborhood watch") If I'm reading your post correctly, you think he should be in jail, and that means you either think he should be in jail for breaking the law OR you think he should be in jail even though he hasn't broken the law.
Which is it? Do you want to jail people who haven't broken the law? If not, then you must have an idea of what law he broke that makes you say he belongs in jail.
quote
Originally posted by DANH:
let me get this straight I have no problem with that at all. I did not say that all watch programs t restrict gun some do I do not know if his does. If his watch program does not allow fire arm even if he does have a carry ccw then he some respect those rules. that all I am saying and that my view . And that would nopt be a crime just bre3aking a rule he agree to
Neighborhood watch doesn't arrest and jail people. Neighborhood watch "rules" are not "laws." Your view is then, that because he may have broken a Neighborhood Watch rule, he should be in jail? Is that correct?
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 04-14-2012).]
Around here anyway, a neighborhood watch includes ALL the residents of that area. There are no official watch 'officers' although someone (like Zimmerman) might be in charge to call meetings, etc. It dont control whether you use a vehicle or not or whether you carry a legal weapon or not. Im in a neighborhood watch and Im just observant of suspicious activity and report it to police as is everyone else on the block. I carry my weapon when I want. No one tells me when I can. If someone is lurking around my private property or threatening me, Ill shoot too if necessary.
Yep, on both counts. I saw the judge on the news this morning and thought the same thing. She's pretty tasty. She may have to recuse herself though, apparently some possible conflict involving her husband. I guess the decision is being left to defense counsel.
From what she said on HLN yesterday, a partner in her husbands law firm is a legal consultant for CNN news. I dont see any conflict myself, but a lawyer might find reason so she thought it best to announce the facts right out from the start.
From what she said on HLN yesterday, a partner in her husbands law firm is a legal consultant for CNN news. I dont see any conflict myself, but a lawyer might find reason so she thought it best to announce the facts right out from the start.
its always safer to excuse oneself than risk a mistrial afterward..
on't post much in this thread, because I don't wish to get swept up in the abuse by the Media. But... there is one conundrum that puzzles me. Martin is reputed to have fled when he realised Zimmerman was 'following him'. And yet, he was seen to have attacked Zimmerman, irrepsective of whom attacked whom in the first place...WHY did he run the first instance? He obvioulsy wasn't scared, or else why would he have returned to confront him, and then beat him? Now, that could go either way: Either Zimmerman did in fact follow Martin, and confronted him, possibly with is gun in view...and Martin just lost it and attacked him. Or else Martin doubled back, and attacked him..and thus proved he wasn't so scared to run in the first place. Did he in fact have some incriminating evidence on him, which he disposed off whilst fleeing? because I can't seethe two things gelling at all. One completely says the opposite to the other. And until that is sorted out and proved one way or the other, I would not feel confident enough, on the suppose devidence being quoted in the Media, to make a decision either way. Nick
no spin at all. 
She looks like a model.
