Originally posted by Doug85GT: I can count two posts in this thread where someone said there was no investigation. If a "pole" (sic) was taken country wide, what do you think would be the percentage of people that think there was no investigation?
Exiting the vehicle and questioning Martin does not show intent to kill. It show he intended to get out of the vehicle and question Martin.
If they do show intent to kill, then it will be a Murder 1 charge, not 2.
Those that believe there was NO investigation would be misinformed in the literal sense of the word. There was indeed "an investigation".....whether it was professional, in depth, unbiased or reflected the facts of the case that have subsequently been revealed is the issue that seems to be at the center of the police controversy.
As far as the potential charges Zimmerman would face, I am fully aware of the nuances between 1st degree and 2nd degree murder but I don't think he'll face a 1st degree murder charge, regardless of demonstrated "intent." I'm not of the opinion that a jury will come back with that punitive a verdict in this instance. Just my gut feeling....it's not really based on anything concrete.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-22-2012).]
I still need more facts to judge either way. Was the kid doing anything or acting suspicious ? Was it dark out...hard to tell whats in someones hands in the dark ? Call it racist if you want, but the fact is more blacks commit crimes. Simply listening to a police scanner or reading the days police reports backs that up. Whats the percentages in jails and prisons ? Im not racist because if I catch you stealing or vandlizing stuff at my place, I shoot whether your black, white or green. Am I more suspicious of a black kid in a hoodie than a white one, sorry to say yes I am for the above reasons.
Any who names a person Trayvon. Do they just make them up out of the blue these days ?
Don't you know Roger? It's no longer about proving anything. All you need is enough people to yell "guilty" enough times, and that's all it takes. Especially when you get Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in on the gig.
Welcome to the modern day lynch mob.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 03-23-2012).]
One cannot be the initial and primary aggressor and then claim self defense. Zimmerman is guilty of causing Trayvon's death and should pay for what he did. He doesn't deserve a pat on the back and an atta boy from anybody. He shot some boy wearing a hoodie and carrying a can of tea and some Skittles because he didn't like him being in his neighborhood. Even if Trayvon had been tresspassing, Zimmerman had no right to accost him and kill him.
Here's the deal. A lot of great arguments in this thread.
There is a place where it can all be argued,by people, in front of peers that can make a decision on what has happened. A courtroom.
A kid is dead, and a man had a gun to do it. There is no immediate proof of self-defense for law enforcement to say, "not worth the charge".
When you arm yourself, I think you take responsibility that if you use it, there will be consequences. Either, you were clearly in harm's way, and that is evident to all, or you get a case like this. He made that decision when he decided to carry. He made that decision AGAIN when he decided to use it.
If you don't want to ever be put in a situation where you feel justified in a gun's use, but the law does not-then don't carry.
Is there a racial aspect to this case? I believe so. BUT, my primary concern is that above, and it doesn't matter what color everyone is.
Am I more suspicious of a black kid in a hoodie than a white one, sorry to say yes I am for the above reasons.
Any who names a person Trayvon. Do they just make them up out of the blue these days ?
It isn't racist to name a fact. It is racist to let that affect how you view strangers. Sorry, maybe I'm naive, but I don't see a difference between strangers, regardless of what statistics say. Each person is an individual, not part of a statistic. That's how I see it.
But yes, some names these days.... My friend's sister's name was Magic Honeybunch until she turned 18 and changed it to Maggie something. Yes, her parents were on drugs at the time haha.
Here's the deal. A lot of great arguments in this thread.
There is a place where it can all be argued,by people, in front of peers that can make a decision on what has happened. A courtroom.
A kid is dead, and a man had a gun to do it. There is no immediate proof of self-defense for law enforcement to say, "not worth the charge".
When you arm yourself, I think you take responsibility that if you use it, there will be consequences. Either, you were clearly in harm's way, and that is evident to all, or you get a case like this. He made that decision when he decided to carry. He made that decision AGAIN when he decided to use it.
If you don't want to ever be put in a situation where you feel justified in a gun's use, but the law does not-then don't carry.
Is there a racial aspect to this case? I believe so. BUT, my primary concern is that above, and it doesn't matter what color everyone is.
Don't you know Roger? It's no longer about proving anything. All you need is enough people to yell "guilty" enough times, and that's all it takes. Especially when you get Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in on the gig.
Welcome to the modern day lynch mob.
Have you actually read any of the facts surrounding the case.....or was the ethnicity of the people involved sufficient enough for you to make an "informed" determination? Just curious.....
March 21st, 2012 06:10 PM ET Tonight on AC360: Florida Shooter claims 'Stand Your Ground' defense
Just minutes after we pulled up for our interview with Kanina James, the tears began to flow. We found her sitting on the front porch, alone, and still in pain.
It’s been a year and a half or so since her husband of 13 years was shot dead by a 71-year-old retired bus driver. The shooter, Trevor Dooley, says he shot 41-year-old David James because he thought James was going to kill him. He’s using a statute in Florida known as the Stand Your Ground law to try and get the charges against him dropped.
It all started on a neighborhood basketball court in a suburb of Tampa. The two men got into an altercation over a teenager skateboarding on the court. Dooley was shouting at the teenager to get off the court, and James intervened. After a struggle, Dooley shot James once in the heart. He died in front of his 8-year-old daughter. Kanina James told me she’s worried about her daughter because she doesn’t want to talk about that day and keeps it all bundled inside. She’s seeing a therapist but it’s not really working. Kanina James believes the Stand Your Ground law is like a free pass to murder.
I hope you’ll tune in tonight for AC360° at 8 and 10 p.m. ET for this emotional interview; you can decide who you think was the aggressor in this case and if Trevor Dooley should stand trial. Share your thoughts with me on Twitter @RandiKayeCNN
For all of you people that say there was no investigation, look at Neptune's link:
From the link:
[QUOTE] March 13
Police complete their investigation, turning the case over to the State Attorney's Office for the 18th Circuit. A spokeswoman promises "a through, deliberate and just review."
[/QUOTE]
Notice how Law enforcement "didn't" investigate the incident the correct way.
1. The crime scene. a. Forensic (removal of Zimmerman's clothing) for gun powder residue, blood splatter, ect. b. What ever evidence there might have been is forever lost. c. secures the crime scene. d. Photographs?
2. 911 tapes. a. Zimmerman's refusal to obey the 911 request. b. No initial threat by Martin. c. Zimmerman initiating the confrontation with Martin. d. Zimmerman has a previous record with a LEO and several domestic issues where Leo’s were called. e. Zimmerman didn’t tell the 911 dispatcher he had a weapon. Why?
Many unanswered questions regarding this case, but two thing are clear. Zimmerman initiated contact with Martin even though Martin wasn’t a threat and was warned not too by the 911 dispatcher. A person connot be a "threat" if you're following the person. Personally, I'd like to know where exactly was he shot at, bullet entry and exit wounds, and time line.
March 21st, 2012 06:10 PM ET Tonight on AC360: Florida Shooter claims 'Stand Your Ground' defense
Just minutes after we pulled up for our interview with Kanina James, the tears began to flow. We found her sitting on the front porch, alone, and still in pain.
It’s been a year and a half or so since her husband of 13 years was shot dead by a 71-year-old retired bus driver. The shooter, Trevor Dooley, says he shot 41-year-old David James because he thought James was going to kill him. He’s using a statute in Florida known as the Stand Your Ground law to try and get the charges against him dropped.
It all started on a neighborhood basketball court in a suburb of Tampa. The two men got into an altercation over a teenager skateboarding on the court. Dooley was shouting at the teenager to get off the court, and James intervened. After a struggle, Dooley shot James once in the heart. He died in front of his 8-year-old daughter. Kanina James told me she’s worried about her daughter because she doesn’t want to talk about that day and keeps it all bundled inside. She’s seeing a therapist but it’s not really working. Kanina James believes the Stand Your Ground law is like a free pass to murder.
I hope you’ll tune in tonight for AC360° at 8 and 10 p.m. ET for this emotional interview; you can decide who you think was the aggressor in this case and if Trevor Dooley should stand trial. Share your thoughts with me on Twitter @RandiKayeCNN
IMO, the police in this instance handled the investigation professionally and reacted appropriately. Most people believe this is how the system is supposed to work.
I'd be interested in your views on how the Dooley case parallels with the Martin shooting....and the subsequent handling of the case by the Sanford police.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-23-2012).]
IMO, the police in this instance handled the investigation professionally and reacted appropriately. Most people believe this is how the system is supposed to work.
I'd be interested in your views on how the Dooley case parallels with the Martin shooting....and the subsequent handling of the case by the Sanford police.
I'd say that was a shot in the foot (pun intended).
I will say that as far as 911 operator goes, come on, I bet if you called 911 and said their was somebody breaking into your car or garage they would tell you not to confront the alleged robber/burglar. I would bet they will do it every time. I bet they HAVE TO. I do not think you are under any legal obligation to follow their instructions or suggestions. I know I would not go hide or ignore, or wait for the police to do something. IF I did confront somebody and they attacked me, well heaven help them.
Just remember, if you are going to harm another human being, make dam sure they are the same color as you.
As far as this race crap goes, I do not care. I care whether a crime was commited.
This started out horrible and it will end badly for both sides.
Living in Florida and having fleeing felons hiding on my property I now know what its like to be afraid. Not afraid of running into them but being afraid that I will have to defend myself and possibly take another life. Honestly if someone was on my carport I would confront them but as soon as they left the roof line I would stop. I wouldn't chase them down and try to harm them. But its good to know if I am forced into that kind of situation I wont lose everything because of the actions of another.
This started out horrible and it will end badly for both sides.
Living in Florida and having fleeing felons hiding on my property I now know what its like to be afraid. Not afraid of running into them but being afraid that I will have to defend myself and possibly take another life. Honestly if someone was on my carport I would confront them but as soon as they left the roof line I would stop. I wouldn't chase them down and try to harm them. But its good to know if I am forced into that kind of situation I wont lose everything because of the actions of another.
....and as a law-abiding citizen you'd have every right to defend yourself if you were forced into that kind of situation.
The operative word is "forced."
You don't sound like someone who would potentially pursue someone for the purpose of "forcing" the confrontation, though.
With all the peripheral discussion going on surrounding this particular incident, the key issue is whether Zimmerman was forced into a deadly confrontation or acted in such a manner as to precipitate the confrontation. The subsequent controversy arose as a result of the police making that determination based upon what has come to light as an inadequate investigation of the event rather than allowing the justice system (as in the Dooley case) to make that determination. Several of the posts thus far have suggested that the courts are the appropriate venues for such determinations to be made.
As usually happens with these types of stories, our emotions get the best of us and we jump to conclusions. Fortunately our justice system, which is not perfect, is not based on emotion.
There are a few cornerstones to our justice system that must be remembered. First and foremost is "Innocent until proven guilty"! Please refrain from calling Zimmerman a murderer until he is convicted. If you must use the term, please apply alleged in front of. It does not matter what you think or feel, what matters is justice. You can know beyond a doubt that he did it but innocent until proven guilty, this facet of our justice system must be upheld! As an example, OJ Simpson, everyone knows he did it. The point being, the prosecution could not convince a jury of his peers (reasonable persons) that he did. Justice was served. Failed justice? Flawed justice? Certainly, but as I said our system is not perfect. I, for one, am ok with the fact that he got off. Not because one murderer walked free but for the thousands of innocent people that would have been locked up if they were not "Innocent until proven guilty".
Second is the "reasonable persons" part of our justice system. The entire trial system is based on this. "You have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers." The founders of our justice system knew everyone thought differently and that there was no way to prove your exact thought's during an incident. Thus came the jury trial. 12 people were to be a representative cross section of "reasonable persons". These 12 have the daunting task of determining whether a reasonable person would have acted the same way and they each get a 1/12th vote.
There are a few aspects in this case to consider while bearing in mind those two important aspects of our justice system. would a reasonable person believe that Zimmerman feared for his life? I cannot answer that as I clearly do not have all the facts. I think more likely what it will fall back to before it even gets to that point is, whether or not Florida has legal language, like Kentucky and many other states, defining "initial aggressor". In Kentucky if I chase someone down, start an altercation and then the other person gets the better of me. I can not legally justify the use of a deadly weapon in defense as I was the "initial aggressor". If Florida does not have similar language (it should!) then this case is going to get very interesting. If it does have similar language then it certainly seems Zimmerman is a murderer, allegedly
I guess all I'm trying to say is, please check your emotions at the door when analyzing an open case.
Regardless how this pans out, someone lost their life, and that is tragic (same thing with OJ). The only way I see that this should have any effect on gun law is if Florida does not have "initial aggressor" language. If they don't, that needs to change!
I still need more facts to judge either way. Was the kid doing anything or acting suspicious ? Was it dark out...hard to tell whats in someones hands in the dark ? Call it racist if you want, but the fact is more blacks commit crimes. Simply listening to a police scanner or reading the days police reports backs that up. Whats the percentages in jails and prisons ? Im not racist because if I catch you stealing or vandlizing stuff at my place, I shoot whether your black, white or green. Am I more suspicious of a black kid in a hoodie than a white one, sorry to say yes I am for the above reasons.
Any who names a person Trayvon. Do they just make them up out of the blue these days ?
, After reading what you said I am convinced you should take your foot out of your mouth,if you have nothing to say just shut up. Where ever you get your facts from you need to do more research when you say blacks commit more crime than any other race ..show some proof to this forum.
As for the name what does it matter it is just a name like Roger,ThomasOsama,Barack or Domingo ,Juan or Abdullah this just show what is deep down in your mind and can't be hidden. Based on your statement you would shoot a black person wearing a hoodie than a white kid...........hmm the ravist in you is showing this is about justice and not race.
The same people who would name a kid Roger......parents.
Roger, huh?....Do "they" just make up names out of the blue nowadays....or, better yet, back in the "good ol' days?"
You've long ceased to shock me.
They meaning parents btw. There are LOTS of Rogers out there and has been for centuries. How many do you know named Trayvon ? I think they just threw out a bunch of kids letter blocks and named him whatever came up. My dad liked Roy Rogers and named me for him. I named my oldest son Kirk because I liked Star Trek. There used to be a reason people picked out names...now apparently not so much. Thats whats shocking to me. To me Trayvon sounds like it should be a girls name so they already gave the kid an identity crisis to work his way thru.
If it comes out that this kid was actually up to no good are there going to be apologies from the people that screamed racism? I doubt it. You guys have already decided the Police are incompetent, the shooter was racist, the kid was an angel, and the media is telling you the truth. Why hear the truth when it comes out. Who needs a trial anyway.
, After reading what you said I am convinced you should take your foot out of your mouth,if you have nothing to say just shut up. Where ever you get your facts from you need to do more research when you say blacks commit more crime than any other race ..show some proof to this forum.
As for the name what does it matter it is just a name like Roger,ThomasOsama,Barack or Domingo ,Juan or Abdullah this just show what is deep down in your mind and can't be hidden. Based on your statement you would shoot a black person wearing a hoodie than a white kid...........hmm the ravist in you is showing this is about justice and not race.
Boogaloo....don't let Roger upset you. It took me a while to learn that lesson myself.
Please don't get sidetracked by any of that. I'd really like to try to keep the discussion from degrading into the typical PFF name-calling session.
So far, so good.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-23-2012).]
Originally posted by twofatguys: If it comes out that this kid was actually up to no good are there going to be apologies from the people that screamed racism? I doubt it. You guys have already decided the Police are incompetent, the shooter was racist, the kid was an angel, and the media is telling you the truth. Why hear the truth when it comes out. Who needs a trial anyway.
Brad
The people who want the truth to come out, such as it is and whatever that may be. Isn't our legal system set up in such a manner as to accommodate that?
BTW....thanks for not slinging the "You're playing the race card" mantle directly at me this time. I've made it a point to try to focus specifically on the legal aspects of the incident.
Read any of the public police reports or listen (like I do sometimes) to a police scanner. Watch any daily news. Add up the black and white accused criminals for a week and get back to me.
I didnt say shoot the black and not the white. I said im just more suspicious of them than whites because of that. If im out walking somewhere and see a group of young guys approaching, ill tend to avoid the black group more than I would the white one for the same reason. Call me racist if you want.
There are a few aspects in this case to consider while bearing in mind those two important aspects of our justice system. would a reasonable person believe that Zimmerman feared for his life? I cannot answer that as I clearly do not have all the facts. I think more likely what it will fall back to before it even gets to that point is, whether or not Florida has legal language, like Kentucky and many other states, defining "initial aggressor". In Kentucky if I chase someone down, start an altercation and then the other person gets the better of me. I can not legally justify the use of a deadly weapon in defense as I was the "initial aggressor". If Florida does not have similar language (it should!) then this case is going to get very interesting. If it does have similar language then it certainly seems Zimmerman is a murderer, allegedly
~Tyler
I've been trying to find the language in the KY law that referred to :initial aggressor" and can't seem to locate it. I do, however, see where the state makes a difference between the use of "physical force" and "deadly physical force."
Kentucky Revised Statute 503.080: Protection of property.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or (b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or (b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or (c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.[15]
If there's a particular statute I should be looking for, please direct me to it. I'd be curious to see how Kentucky formulated the statutory language vs. Florida.
Thanks!
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-23-2012).]
Read any of the public police reports or listen (like I do sometimes) to a police scanner. Watch any daily news. Add up the black and white accused criminals for a week and get back to me.
I didnt say shoot the black and not the white. I said im just more suspicious of them than whites because of that. If im out walking somewhere and see a group of young guys approaching, ill tend to avoid the black group more than I would the white one for the same reason. Call me racist if you want.
RRoger you need to STFU you make white peole look bad with your way of thinking and yes you are the #1 diabolical wannabe elitist race monger.
I've been trying to find the language in the KY law that referred to :initial aggressor" and can't seem to locate it. I do, however, see where the state makes a difference between the use of "physical force" and "deadly physical force."
If there's a particular statute I should be looking for, please direct me to it. I'd be curious to see how Kentucky formulated the statutory language vs. Florida.
Thanks!
You were almost there. Just needed to go a bit further.
KRS § 503.060 Improper use of physical force in self-protection. Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when: (1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or (2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or (3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when: (a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or (b) He withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 31, effective January 1, 1975
~Tyler
[This message has been edited by GT-X (edited 03-23-2012).]
The people who want the truth to come out, such as it is and whatever that may be. Isn't our legal system set up in such a manner as to accommodate that?
BTW....thanks for not slinging the "You're playing the race card" mantle directly at me this time. I've made it a point to try to focus specifically on the legal aspects of the incident.
It wasn't directed at you, though I am curious about the Civil Rights organizations that get involved so quickly. Usually though that's just Jackson, or Sharpton seeing a way to make more money for themselves, using emotions to gain money and power.
I don't think this was about race at all, on any level. I have tried to look up details of the shooting and can't seem to find anything other than attacks on George Zimmerman. Whoever is running the hate campaign against him is doing an amazing job. I want to know what time it happened when Martin was shot. I finally found a picture of Zimmerman, and he doesn't look white in it. Isn't that one of the requirements for racism?
First off I am incredibly suspicious of the media. The only reason it's a big story is because they figured out how to make money off of it. This means details have usually been left out, or changed to make it more sensational. Worse things happen every day, but the media can't make a buck off of it, so it gets set aside. (I am not saying this wasn't a tragedy, just calling it like it is.)
Mar 23, 2012 5:00pm Trayvon Martin Case: Timeline of Events
Feb. 26: Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Florida high school student, is found shot and killed, in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando.
OK, he was "found" by the Police that were called before he was shot, see how it was worded to make it sound like Zimmerman took off?
quote
Several eyewitnesses report to police that they heard a scuffle, then a cry for help, and then a gunshot.
According to the Sanford police report, George Zimmerman, 28, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, is found armed with a handgun, standing over Martin. He has a bloody nose and a wound in the back of his head.
Wait, Bloody? Wounded? Well that's strange, I'm not hearing a lot about that in the news.
quote
Martin is unresponsive and pronounced dead at the scene. He has no weapons on him, only a pack of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea.
Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. They also did not run a background check.
The Police also had a guy that called 911 before all this happened, was assaulted by the person he shot (remember, this is a 17 year old football player. I haven't seen a picture of him since the one of him in the red shirt where he is around 13.)
quote
March 9: Trayvon Martin’s family demands that police release the 911 tapes or make an arrest nearly one month after Martin was killed. Police declined to comment at the time, but told ABC News the tapes would be released the following week.
March 12: ABC News uncovers questionable police conduct in the investigation of the fatal shooting of Martin, including the alleged “correction” of at least one eyewitness’ account.
Sanford Police Chief Billy Lee said there is no evidence to dispute Zimmerman’s assertion that he shot Martin out of self-defense.
Now, once again. I still have not found an actual "timeline", I'm really curious about what time what happened. Everything I Google comes back to "Zimmerman is a racist". Really amazing that things are so skewed that anything with "Zimmerman" or "Martin" in it comes back to links about Zimmerman being racist.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 03-23-2012).]
It wasn't directed at you, though I am curious about the Civil Rights organizations that get involved so quickly. Usually though that's just Jackson, or Sharpton seeing a way to make more money for themselves, using emotions to gain money and power.
I don't think this was about race at all, on any level. I have tried to look up details of the shooting and can't seem to find anything other than attacks on George Zimmerman. Whoever is running the hate campaign against him is doing an amazing job. I want to know what time it happened when Martin was shot. I finally found a picture of Zimmerman, and he doesn't look white in it. Isn't that one of the requirements for racism?
First off I am incredibly suspicious of the media. The only reason it's a big story is because they figured out how to make money off of it. This means details have usually been left out, or changed to make it more sensational. Worse things happen every day, but the media can't make a buck off of it, so it gets set aside. (I am not saying this wasn't a tragedy, just calling it like it is.)
Brad
It happened close to 7:12 PM in the rain. This article has a lot more facts in it than you will find in most other articles:
Originally posted by Doug85GT: It happened close to 7:12 PM in the rain. This article has a lot more facts in it than you will find in most other articles:
A number of facts in there including many not cited in any news stories I have read.
Here is a news broadcast from soon after the shooting. They actually talked to one of the witnesses that says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him and Zimmerman was calling out for help. It has crappy audio. It looks like someone took a video with a cell phone of a TV but you can still hear it.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 03-23-2012).]
On the other side, Zimmerman looks pretty scarey too at least by his picture Ive seen. Id cross the street to avoid him at nite too.
Call it what you will, Im just telling my honest answer. Would I go for a walk with a gf late at nite in a predominately white neighborhood...yes and in fact I do. Would I go for the same walk in a predominately black neighborhood...not on your life. Whether its way I was brought up, or current conditions or whatever the reason, thats just the way I am. My own black friend and business partner wont go out in his own neighborhood thats mostly black, he comes over here. So I guess his being black and scared of blacks makes him racist too ? I can kiss your butt and tell you thats all wrong and we should love everyone, but I wont lie about it. Its a free country to feel whatever I want to and you to do the same. Again, not enough facts are out to go either way yet. All these public gatherings arent helping anything either. Are they going to apologize if theyre wrong after everything comes out ? What if someone with surveillance camera has the whole thing recorded and the kid turned around and confronted or threatened the bully white guy ? I had a young black threaten me when I asked him to turn down his stereo. Every other word was a curse word. I just called the cops and they hauled him off because he had a couple of warrants out on him already.
A number of facts in there including many not cited in any news stories I have read.
Here is a news broadcast from soon after the shooting. They actually talked to one of the witnesses that says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him and Zimmerman was calling out for help. It has crappy audio. It looks like someone took a video with a cell phone of a TV but you can still hear it.
Wow. 5 witnesses, who each would have had to say that Zimmerman was attacked or he would have been arrested for murder at that point, and more information than I have seen on the News to date. Thanks. 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.
The key question will come down to whether or not Zimmerman started the fight. Talking to Martin doesn't qualify as starting an altercation. So, how did Zimmerman approach Martin, what was said or done and who made the first physical attack? That will be up to the court to decide. Race has nothing to do with it.
Now, race very well may play a part of the police's lazy handling of the investigation, which should be investigated. I think their treatment of this incident is potentially more tragic than Martin's death. If they are at fault, how many other cases have there been that didn't make the news?
But I see Obama has now weighed in on this, of course because Martin is black. (if you think Obama would have gotten involved if Martin were white, please hold your breath until he calls Bristol Palin to console her for the attacks she's received by the media - which was more than being called a "slut" by Limbaugh). President Obama has made it very difficult for there to be an impartial trial and increased the chances that Zimmerman will walk no matter what evidence is presented. It's one thing to be on the news, but when the president weighs in on the topic and it's carried by every news agency in the nation, just try and find an impartial jury.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-23-2012).]
March 21st, 2012 06:10 PM ET Tonight on AC360: Florida Shooter claims 'Stand Your Ground' defense
Just minutes after we pulled up for our interview with Kanina James, the tears began to flow. We found her sitting on the front porch, alone, and still in pain.
It’s been a year and a half or so since her husband of 13 years was shot dead by a 71-year-old retired bus driver. The shooter, Trevor Dooley, says he shot 41-year-old David James because he thought James was going to kill him. He’s using a statute in Florida known as the Stand Your Ground law to try and get the charges against him dropped.
It all started on a neighborhood basketball court in a suburb of Tampa. The two men got into an altercation over a teenager skateboarding on the court. Dooley was shouting at the teenager to get off the court, and James intervened. After a struggle, Dooley shot James once in the heart. He died in front of his 8-year-old daughter. Kanina James told me she’s worried about her daughter because she doesn’t want to talk about that day and keeps it all bundled inside. She’s seeing a therapist but it’s not really working. Kanina James believes the Stand Your Ground law is like a free pass to murder.
I hope you’ll tune in tonight for AC360° at 8 and 10 p.m. ET for this emotional interview; you can decide who you think was the aggressor in this case and if Trevor Dooley should stand trial. Share your thoughts with me on Twitter @RandiKayeCNN
HOLY **** , why haven't I heard about this white man being shot by a black man on sort of the same circumstances, in the same state.. Oh yea.. white guy died and Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton's racist asses weren't all over it..
A few things to admit.
I'm not defending the Zimmerman, I agree both of these cases should go to trial if REAL and reasonable evidence is there (Innocent until PROVEN guilty) It's just bullshit that these agitators (Jackson and Sharpton and "cvil rights" activists) love to continue to try to cause race division. They are doing the exact opposite of what they SAY they stand for.
One other problem I have with this case is the continued use of the media saying Trayvon had Skittles.. This is obviously trying to make him sound like a little kid. He was SIX FOOT TWO.... Stop making him look like a 7 year old boy who couldn't pose a threat to Zimmerman who is five foot two. (Yes I know Zimmerman is fat)
Was the "investigation" over? Maybe with what they had they could not charge Zimmerman... From the little research I've done it sounds like Zimmerman sustained injuries that collaborate eyewitness accounts that say he was on the ground with Trayvon on top of him and Zimmerman was calling for help before the shot.
None of us were there to know what happened. It's all a guess. So many scenarios could have played out. We can try to fill it in with pervious behavior, eyewitness accounts, ballistics, injuries, and 911 calls. But the burden of proof has to exist that Zimmerman did not act in self defense before he should be arrested.
My Summary.
It's sad that anyone died. Go away racists. (Jackson, Sharpton) The media is biased toward making the story sound "better". Don't destroy another life if the evidence is not there to charge them. (No matter how unfortunate it may seem)
a term that i've heard people frequently use as a derogetory term for black people. i'm assuming it is derived from the boogaloo style of music, which originated with black Puerto Ricans in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Racist: Those dirty boogaloos, let's get the Klan after them!
Average Joe: This isn't the South in the 1960s, you stupid hick? Racism was supposed to be eradicated from this country years ago!
quote
Boogaloo
It's by default a slang word mainly used among French-Canadian living in the province of Quebec to define all sloppy, dirty, oily, smelly and poor black Afro Canadian. Boogaloo usually drives very dirty, rusty and ***** color foreign cars such as rown or beige old Nissan or purple Toyota's. What we do call "A piece of **** car". They will not care when changing lanes or don't care if they hit you Look at that ******' boogaloo!!
Please note that I don't agree with these terms, or descriptions. It's a dance, and not racist at all unless you call someone by this name. That's when it becomes racist. Calling yourself by this name, the way I define it makes it a racist term. Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 03-23-2012).]
