Hello again:

Didja hear? He smoked pot and wore come shoot me clothes. Maybe he was asking for it...

excon

It irritates me to no end that the media and the defense are trying to make him out to be the criminal here.

Question... If Trayvon Martin had been one of the 50 shot in Chicago on St Patty's day weekend ,would anyone know his name ?

If Trayvon Martin had been one of the 50 shot in Chicago on St Patty's day weekend ,would anyone know his name ?Hello again, tom:

It's true. If young black boys are carpet bombed, it's more acceptable... Cause there's too many to protest each one...

Why did you highlight Neva, the dead Iranian girl? Cause nobody cares about LOTS of dead Iranians...

excon

I hear conflicting sequence of events. What were they?

1. Trayvon went to convenience store to buy candy and soda. Was walking after dark to his dad's fiance's home in gated community. Was wearing hoodie, with hoodie over his head?
2. Zimmerman saw him, noticed he had hoodie on his head, suspected Trayvon was a gang member?
3. Zimmerman radioed police who told him to back off.
4. Zimmeman continued to follow Trayvon.
5. Trayvon asked, "Who's following me?" Was in cell phone contact with a friend.
6. Zimmerman, obeying police, returned around to go back to his SUV? Or he grabbed Trayvon and spun him around and Treyvon assaulted him?

How did Zimmerman get his injuries? Why hadn't he backed off when police told him to? (Or did he really and Trayvon followed him, assaulted him?)

How did Zimmerman get his injuries? Why hadn't he backed off when police told him to? (Or did he really and Trayvon followed him, assaulted him?)Hello again, WG:

You bring up a key issue that I'd like to expand on... Pursuant to the law, one may "stand ones ground" and use deadly force if one feels threatened. Can the provision switch sides during an altercation?

Let's say I provoke a fight with you. I get off the first punch and I'm standing over you. The law says you can shoot me. But, you don't. Instead you get up and start WINNING the fight. Now, I'm afraid that you're going to hurt me. Can I shoot you?

Let's say Trayvon was running away, as we know he was. It's ON the tape. Why wasn't HE allowed to "stand his ground", and break Zimmermans nose?

I wonder just who can stand who's ground?? I ask these questions to show how stupid and utterly useless the law is.

excon

Who had the gun? (Rhetorical question, meaning whose life was in danger at all times?)

Did Zimmerman ever have reason to use his gun? Trayvon had deadly fists?

Who had the gun? (Rhetorical question, meaning whose life was in danger at all times?)Hello again, WG:

The law doesn't turn on who's in ACTUAL danger.. It's who FEELS like he's in danger.

excon

Hello again, tom:

It's true. If young black boys are carpet bombed, it's more acceptable... Cause there's too many to protest each one...

Why did you highlight Neva, the dead Iranian girl? Cause nobody cares about LOTS of dead Iranians...

excon

It wasn't carpet bombing.. It was in the course of a typically violent Chi town weekend . But I did give a name of one of the victims ;a 6 year old girl named Aliyah Shell. I found that by accident . It is not a national story . Wonder why ?

That Trayvon kid musta been some threatening killer type.

And for the hoodies ,I have mixed feelings about them now . On the one hand they are very convenient apparel in cool weather . But until this month I never considered them to be apparel that identifies me a someone who could be targeted ,nor did I wear them as part of an identity .
But I've been doing my research and came across a speech delivered by Philadephia Mayor Michael Nutter 8 months or so ago in the middle of a violent Philadephia summer .
Here it is (edited to remove the stuff not related to the attire ):


If you want all of us — black, white, or any other color — if you want us to respect you, if you want us to look at you in a different way, if you want us not to be afraid to walk down the same side of the street with you, if you want folks not to jump out of the elevator when you get on, if you want folks to stop following you around in stores when you're out shopping, if you want somebody to offer you a job or an internship somewhere, if you don't want folks to be looking in or trying to go in a different direction when they see two or twenty of you coming down the street, then stop acting like idiots and fools, out in the streets of the city of Philadelphia. Just cut it out. And another thing. Take those doggone hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt, because no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody. Buy a belt. Buy a belt. Nobody wants to see your underwear. Comb your hair. And get some grooming skills. Comb your hair. Running round here with your hair all over the place. Learn some manners. Keep your butt in school, graduate from high school, go on to college so you can go and make something of yourself and be a good citizen, here in this city. And why don't you work on extending your English vocabulary. Extend your English vocabulary beyond the few curse words that you know, some other grunts and grumbles and other things that none of us can understand what you're saying. And if you go to look for a job, don't go blame it on the white folks, or anybody else. If you walk in somebody's office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back and your shoes untied and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arm, on your face, on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won't hire you. They don't hire you because you look like you're crazy. That's why they're not hiring you.

So, you do those things, and act like you got some sense, and you'd be surprised what opportunities will open up to you. That's what was on my mind. That's all I've got to say.

American Rhetoric: Michael Nutter -- Speech at Mount Carmel Baptist Church (transcript-audio-video) (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/michaelnuttermountcarmelbaptist.htm)

Supposedly a witness has now come forward . I don't know if the witness is credible or not. The witness account says that Martin slugged Zimmerman in the nose ,knocked him down ,and proceeded to bash his head on the ground. I neither believe or discount this narrative any more than any other factoid I've heard of the case .

One question I've had that I haven't seen addressed is this . Most "gated communities " have guards at the gate. Did this one ? If they did ;did Martin use the gate to leave and enter the grounds ? And if they have a guard at the gate ,then why do they also need a community watch patrol ? Was Zimmerman acting on his own ,or as a sanctioned community volunteer ?

Here is the statement from the Sanford police. It is their answer to some of the questions that have been asked in the case. I make no conclusions from them ,
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Hello tom:

You missed it.. I posted that he wore "come shoot me clothes", because that notion is being propagated, and it's the MOST STUPID, and RACIST idea to come along.. It's like when a girl wears something sexy and she gets raped, some wrong wing misogynist would say, "well, what should she expect". She was wearing "come rape me clothes"...

And, you bought it.

To suggest that something is wrong with ME because people are scared of ME because of what I wear, says more about their RACISM than my choice in Haute couture.

excon

I guess the black mayor of Philadelphia is also as racist who bought into it. I guess when Bill Cosby condemned the hip hop culture he was also being racist. For that mattter ,so were W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington.

I'm still undecided on the case . More facts are being revealed daily that don't support the initial assumptions. .
I ask again ;where are the outcries to bring the killer of Aliyah Shell to justice . Her parents cries are being met with deaf ears.

I ask again ;where are the outcries to bring the killer of Aliyah Shell to justice . Her parents cries are being met with deaf ears.Hello again, tom:

Here's the difference... When the cops catch the guys who killed Aliyah Shell, they'll PROSECUTE them.. In Trayvons case, we KNOW who killed him, and the COPS are COMPLICIT in it.

That pisses a nation off. Your attempt to deflect failed.

excon

and the COPS are COMPLICIT in it.

Not true . New revelations has shown that the cops wanted to book on manslaughter ,but the local district att. Told them that there wasn't enough evidence . Leaking of witness testimony (if believable ) confirms some of Zimmerman's claim .
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2718130/sanford-cops-wanted-to-charge.html

Your attempt to deflect failed.

And if I was trying to deflect I would've mentioned all the recent black on white hate crimes.
http://www.kmbc.com/r/30572405/detail.html
The problem that Rev Al Sharpton should be addressing is the violent crime inside the "black community " ;like the death of Aliyah Shell.

Question .... If Trayvon Martin had been one of the 50 shot in Chicago on St Patty's day weekend ,would anyone know his name ?

The difference is that when the find the perps they are going to jail, unlike Zimmerman who is free. Just breaking, the arresting cop didn't believe Zimmermans story, and wanted to charge him, but the prosecutor said NO!

That's the difference in your two incidences

I mentioned that already. Sort of makes a lie about that racist cop angle. Did you hear that the racist Zimmerman spent his free time doing volunteer work tutoring minority children ?

Not true . New revelations has shown that the cops wanted to book on manslaughter ,but the local district att. told them that there wasn't enough evidence .
Did you hear that the racist Zimmerman spent his free time doing volunteer work tutoring minority children ?Hello again, tom:

I never said he was a racist. I said he was a killer. That's enough... When I speak about the "cops", the DA was included. As a group, they're COMPLICIT. As a group, their complicity is racist. You STILL haven't faced up to the fact that if Trayvon had been WHITE and Zimmerman black, Trayvon would already being serving his life sentence.

Deflection denied!

excon

Why did Zimmerman have a gun?

Because he is allowed to have a gun. It was properly permitted .

But irresponsibly used!!

Unclear. The local DA wouldn't prosecute even though the cops recommended it . Let the investigation continue.

With him in custody, or out on bail/bond, like everyone else who kills somebody for whatever the reason.

Charges ? The DA told them no .

Lets charge the DA too!

Maybe the state prosecutor will find something... or if not I'm sure Holder's Justice Dept will find some 'hate crime' to charge Zimmerman with . Zimmerman is the victim of his own last name . This case would not have made a spash on the national scene if his last name was Gonzalez.

So Tom are you saying a Hispanic can kill a Nergo and it doesn't rate a mention, strange I thought Hispanics were white men, but then maybe not, depends on which side of the atlantic you come from. I just can't understand your racist society where you have such distinctions between people over here we have citizens and non citizens and indigenous who are only identified for the purposes of dealing with disadvantage

maybe the state prosecutor will find something ...or if not I'm sure Holder's Justice Dept will find some 'hate crime' to charge Zimmerman with . Zimmerman is the victim of his own last name . This case would not have made a spash on the national scene if his last name was Gonzalez.

You mean the judges son gets a free pass because he killed a black guy? Either you are being rudely sarcastic, or blatantly racist. This became a story, and went national when the parents reached out to others for support to get the facts of why their son is dead!

Yeah I can see where some would sweep this under the rug, and have it happen again. Only a racist would see a kid coming from the candy store as up to NO GOOD!

so Tom are you saying a Hispanic can kill a Nergo and it doesn't rate a mention, strange I thought Hispanics were white men, but then maybe not, depends on which side of the atlantic you come from. I just can't understand your racist society where you have such distinctions between people over here we have citizens and non citizens and indigenous who are only identified for the purposes of dealing with disadvantage

Clete, only RACISTS make that distinction, and deny equal protection under the law for those that don't look like them!

You like tossing that smear around .

No smear intended, just an opinionated observation.

Hello again, WG:

You bring up a key issue that I'd like to expand on... Pursuant to the law, one may "stand ones ground" and use deadly force if one feels threatened. Can the provision switch sides during an altercation?

Let's say I provoke a fight with you. I get off the first punch and I'm standing over you. The law says you can shoot me. But, you don't. Instead you get up and start WINNING the fight. Now, I'm afraid that you're gonna hurt me. Can I shoot you?

Let's say Trayvon was running away, as we know he was. It's ON the tape. Why wasn't HE allowed to "stand his ground", and break Zimmermans nose?

I wonder just who can stand who's ground???? I ask these questions to show how stupid and utterly useless the law is.

exconHello tom:

Would you answer this for me?

excon

Not familiar enough with the details of the law to make comment on the nuances. The DA didn't think he could make a case ,and now there is a State attorney investigating the case .

From my reading of the law there is a clear distinction between the aggressor and the one who is defending oneself ,and I do not believe those roles can be reversed . But I could not state that definitlvely .

Hello tom:

Would you answer this for me?

excon

I will try to answer it. The stand your ground is for law abiding citizens. In a case like this where at this time both sides haven't done anything illegal and an altercation ensues then both sides have the right to stand their ground. Now if one was in the middle of the commission of an illegal act they may forfeit that right.

Like if someone was entering your home for burglary and you caught them and it goes sour.

If 2 parties are fighting and it escalates with threats or otherwise then the law may take effect. Circumstance will prevail as to how the law applies.

I will try to answer it. Hello dad:

Well, that was as clear as mud.

excon

New rule, folks, or an old one, perhaps, thou shalt not kill, is anyone confused?

New rule, folks, or an old one, perhaps, thou shalt not kill, is anyone confused?

Me ?

Does that mean not kill like anything or just humans?

Me ?

Does that mean not kill like anything or just humans?

Yes I expect it was all inclusive however it was very specific advice given to humans, so read it either way but specifically that human should not kill human.

In this case one man apparently provoked another by his actions and then killed him when attacked. Both were wrong as the outcome resulted in death. They cannot be considered as equals as one man was armed and the other not. Now we know the law is an a$$ since it allows one to kill with impunity

The origninal text said do not murder . I think that was an important distinction.

So you wish to rewrite the text, the word could be translated murder but I doubt that concept existed then

Huh ? The concept is as old as Cain and Abel.

Its important to note that this new self defence law backed by the NRA with money, has driven gun sales up, through fear of course, and even threatens state laws that prohibit limits gun sales, and carrying a concealed weapon across state lines.

The same group that says you can buy a clip of 32 bullets for a 9mm handgun that was designed for 8 shots from Wal Marts. The assault weapons ban that limited capacity for handguns, and rifles has since expired, so the effect of these new laws has made a nut case capable of killing a lot more citizens.

This fact, and the lax laws about selling guns in the first place only increase the likelihood a nut case can have a gun in the first place. Good for the NRA, and the funeral business, bad for the ones who are killed by these nuts.

Its important to note that this new self defence law backed by the NRA with money, has driven gun sales up, thru fear of course, and even threatens state laws that prohibit limits gun sales, and carrying a concealed weapon across state lines.

The same group that says you can buy a clip of 32 bullets for a 9mm handgun that was designed for 8 shots from Wal Marts. The assault weapons ban that limited capacity for handguns, and rifles has since expired, so the effect of these new laws has made a nut case capable of killing a lot more citizens.

This fact, and the lax laws about selling guns in the first place only increase the likelihood a nut case can have a gun in the first place. Good for the NRA, and the funeral business, bad for the ones who are killed by these nuts.

Im not sure Im understanding this line of thinking. Are you really saying that if guns were illegal then the criminals that aren't suppose to have them in the first place will just give them up? Also those mags your talking about aren't made for the pistols your commenting on. They are for rifles that use pistol ammo. There is nothing to stop a "nut case" if they have an objective anyway. Their way of thinking isn't within normal parameters nor does it have anything to do with how the law is handled. Laws are already in place to stop the known "nut jobs" from getting guns in the first place. Very few States don't have at least some form of background checks before a gun purchase. Also if you have a carry permit and your visiting a "reciprocal" State it is legal to cross a state line with a gun. The only limitation is that your subject to the laws of the State that you are visiting.

The same group that says you can buy a clip of 32 bullets for a 9mm handgun that was designed for 8 shots from Wal Marts. The assault weapons ban that limited capacity for handguns, and rifles has since expired, so the effect of these new laws has made a nut case capable of killing a lot more citizens. Hello again, dad:

I appreciate your attempt to clear up the stand your ground law, but it really didn't help. Let me ask it this way... Let's say you're being chased by an angry MOB, and they want to tear you limb from limb. Can you shoot 'em all?

excon

Hello again, dad:

I appreciate your attempt to clear up the stand your ground law, but it really didn't help. Lemme ask it this way... Let's say you're being chased by an angry MOB, and they want to tear you limb from limb. Can you shoot 'em all?

excon

Can you shoot them all? My answer would be that it depends on the encroachment. Lets say the mob is chasing after you and you feel your life threatened. You shoot 1 or 2 and the mob dissipates. Then you have no right if the other party is in retreat. If they were to continue and the threat remains then you have the right to shoot as many as it takes to relinquish the threat.

To me the line is drawn at the level of threat and reasoning within the law. Lets say the mob is chasing you and you're a few feet from your car. You have enough of a head start to get away. You take a few shots into the crowd to slow them down. That to me would be illegal as you had the means to relinquish the threat without violence.

All of this of course is my opinion and what happens in the real world and the system can be dramatically different.

Can you shoot them all? My answer would be that it depends on the encroachment. Lets say the mob is chasing after you and you feel your life threatened. You shoot 1 or 2 and the mob dissipates.Hello again, dad:

So, you CAN stand you ground. The only difference is how many you can shoot.. But, if you can legally shoot a couple, you can shoot 'em all.

Of course, nobody who is being pursued is going to stop, shoot a couple of people, and then watch?? That ain't real life. If you've got a 30 round magazine, and you fire ONCE or TWICE, you're going to keep on firing..

excon

Hello again, dad:

So, you CAN stand you ground. The only difference is how many you can shoot.. But, if you can legally shoot a couple, you can shoot 'em all.

Of course, nobody who is being pursued is gonna stop, shoot a couple of people, and then watch??? That ain't real life. If you've got a 30 round magazine, and you fire ONCE or TWICE, you're gonna keep on firing..

excon

If it were real life then most people wouldn't be walking around with a 30 round mag. And Im almost positive the person in question would still be running away after shooting someone until they were clear. As I stated only if the crowd continues to follow and create the danger to life would it be OK. Most unarmed crowds would start to dissipate if a gun is fired.

Most unarmed crowds would start to dissipate if a gun is fired.Hello again, dad:

What if one mobster HAS a gun? HIS life IS being threatened. Can HE shoot?

excon

Hello again, dad:

What if one mobster HAS a gun? HIS life IS being threatened. Can HE shoot?

excon

Lets get some definitions down first. If the "mobster" has a legal right to have a gun and it is not during the commission of a crime then yes. If he has lost the right to carry a weapon then no. That would be illegal.

Threatened means imminent danger not just a verbal assault.

Threatened means emminent danger not just a verbal assault.Hello again, dad:

Everybody's gun is legal. The guy the mob was pursing turned around and shot two people. It looks like he was next. Can he shoot?

excon

If you mean a person from the mob returning fire without pursuit then yes.

If they remain in the chase with the specific intention of shooting someone then no. They did not excersize good judgement and were committing an illegal act (crime).

So how about an an unknown adult chasing down, and confronting a kid, and the kid cracks him one, and the guy shoots him?

40 feet from the safety of his truck, and seventy feet from the safety of the kids house? The only probable cause was a strange kid in his neighbor hood of a thousand people. What even gives him the right to confront the kid in the first place?

I mean, who is threatening who here?

Hello again, dad:

You did good, but I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

excon

Hello again, dad:

You did good, but I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

excon

Thanks :)

Like I said before what we are talking about here may not represent real life situations nor the attitude of the courts for a given jurisdiction. It was a hypothetical discussion on hair splitting.

So how about an an unknown adult chasing down, and confronting a kid, and the kid cracks him one, and the guy shoots him?

40 feet from the safety of his truck, and seventy feet from the safety of the kids house? The only probable cause was a strange kid in his neighbor hood of a thousand people. What even gives him the right to confront the kid in the first place?

I mean, who is threatening who here??

The conflict is representational. Both sides are equal. In referring to this case they both had legal reasons for doing what they were doing. They were both within the law. The difference is that one had a carry permit and the other did not.

As far as what actually happened we don't really know and I hope the real truth is ferreted out. It may take months before something changes and arrests are made or it may not happen at all. Our legal system isn't always fair as we would like to assume nor is it always swift.

I respectfully submit, they are not equal, as the guy with the gun was stalking a kid coming from the candy store. They are not equal because he lied about a suspicious character who was up to something when he didn't know. They are not equal because the guy with the gun assumed the kid coming from the candy store was a threat, or suspicious.

They are not equal because the guy with the gun acted on assumptions, presumptions, and not on the basis of fact, and against the suggestions of authority.

They are not equal because the guy with the gun is presumed innocent, by law, and the dead kid coming from the candy store is presumed guilty of something, and no one knows what it is.

Maybe the law needs to be clarified so we know the good guys from the bad guys. Lets also understand this only one of many such cases like this, unarmed people being shot dead with no evidence of wrong doing. I can go with SLOW justice, but NO justice??

Do you really think without the cameras this would be just swept under an already crowded rug? I DO!!

Here is the latest news story I could find on what is going on. It is clear there was an altercation of some kind happening. As to what extent we may never know. But until everything that can be known is known then we must reserve the right of judgement and place faith in the system.

Ref:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-trayvon-martin-march,0,4644246.story

Cal they will kill you with hypotheticals that are not relevant to the case at hand .

Here are the relevant sections of the law . Whether the force used is justified is up to the DAs ,and possibly a jury.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—... a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
.. .
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

...

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:...

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Didja hear that NBC doctored the 9-1-1 tape to make it appear that Zimmerman was a racist ?
NBC to probe its handling of a Trayvon Martin news report (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/04/nbc-to-probe-its-handling-of-a-trayvon-martin-report/1?csp=34news)

Another shining example of the dinosaurs of the gate keepers of truth at work !

They didn't doctor the tape. They did skip a few lines when reporting what the tape had said.

Which is the equivalent of doctoring .It complete altered the sequence to make it appear that Zimmerman made the observation that Martin was a Black on his own, without prompting .

NBC changed the tape to comply with the narrative they were creating . It's a fraud .

The tape wasn't changed. They just skipped over part of the tape. And yes, that was Not A Good Thing.

"During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers,"

That is the lame lie that NBC is issuing as an apology . They should just admit it was an intentional attempt to paint Zimmerman as a racist. In many ways it shaped the way the story has unfolded.

This is how the Today show 1st aired the abridged tape :
"This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black."

This is the actual transcript :
"This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

The 911 officer responded saying, "OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?"

"He looks black,"

Sorry NBC... you don't get a pass . 'An error made in the production process '?? Give me a break!! The State prosecutor should investigate possible evidence tampering... Eric Holder should investigate the instigation of racial tensions by NBC . Zimmerman should consider a defamation lawsuit.

Imagine that by ABC! The F*******g G******ns! They always get away!

Just like the five he called in before.

Well you can hear what you want to hear... I hear the word 'goons'. You hear the word 'coons' . Makes a big difference doesn't it ? Given that his volunteer work involves educating black children ;I tend to believe he used the word 'goons' .

Hello again:

You're ALL missing the point.. It's NOT about Trayvon, Zimmerman, or the media. It's about the racist COPS and the "shoot first and ask questions later", law.

Yeah, I know what you think about ME mentioning race... But, I'd like a simple answer to the simplest of questions... If Trayvon had been white, and Zimmerman black, do you think we would have the same outcome?

We would NOT, and THAT'S the issue..

excon

Well ;we now know that the cops wanted to book him.So the charge that they were racist is unfounded .

the police went to the state attorney with a capias request, meaning: 'We're through with our investigation and here it is for you.' The state attorney impaneled a grand jury, but before anything else could be done, the governor stepped in and asked us to pick it up in mid-stream.”

A capias is a request for charges to be filed.
Sanford cops wanted to charge Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin case (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/sanford-cops-wanted-to-charge-zimmerman-in-trayvon-2266303.html)

There may be issues about the law. But ,IF the narrative is true ;that Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head slammed into the concrete ;then with or without the law , he was justified to use the gun for self defense.

Well ;we now know that the cops wanted to book him.So the charge that they were racist is unfounded .Hello again, tom:

Nice deflection... But, no cigar... We know ONE cop wanted to prosecute. We don't know what OTHER cops wanted, INCLUDING the chief. In any case, you're making a distinction between the cops and the prosecutor that I don't. Racist COP, or racist PROSECUTOR, don't make NO difference to me.

I'll ask ONCE more.. If the circumstances were the same, and a black man killed white man, would he still be free? I know WHY you don't want to answer.

excon

We are already dealing with too many hypotheticals and shifting narratives in this case.

There may be issues about the law. But ,IF the narrative is true ;that Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head slammed into the concrete ;then with or without the law , he was justified to use the gun for self defense.

That remains to be seen, as he was the aggressor, and had he used better judgement, and followed instructions, or even obeyed the recommended guide lines set forth in the neighborhood guide lines, that said, no patrols, no guns, then the circumstances would be different. He would be at home, and an INNOCENT kid would be alive.

I find it amazing you justify this homicide, and condone it with your arguments. I can see you cry to high heaven had it been Zimmerman who was dead, and Trayvon free. And that would be a hypocritical double standard. No matter what you heard on tape, you cannot erase the FACT that all his other calls about suspicious people were of color, and it matters NOT that he volunteered to teach Black kids. That's a cop out. In a half white community the only ones he deems suspicious are kids of color??

Obviously you see, hear, and think what you will but you can't ignore the obvious, nor gloss over it.

Its beginning to look like cover up rather than sloppy police work. Another observation. How can he afford a team of high priced lawyers in the first place? Oh, that's right, he can,his daddy was a judge, but poor people get a public defender, if they live through it.

Fair and unbiased equal protection under the law my A$$!! Fact is this law, and law enforcements application of it lets murderers go free, and serves the public poorly. You call this law and order?

We are already dealing with too many hypotheticals and shifting narratives in this case.Hello again, tom:

You have constantly brought up all the OTHER killings that went on during that weekend... Apparently, you're perplexed as to why THIS killing is any different... When I try to explain that the black community can tell the difference between a RACIST system, and a NON racist one, you look at me with a wrinkled up nose, and say WHAT racism...

I've pointed out that when the cops catch the killers in ALL the other killings YOU mention, they WILL be prosecuted.. THIS one isn't. When I raise THE pertinent question, the answer of which will reveal WHY this killing IS different, you want to look the other way.

excon

All I know is that on the same day that Bobby Rush donned a hoodie to speak in the House of Reps ;there were 13 people shot, leaving two dead in Chicago .In his district a black man donned a hoodie and shot 5 ,killing one. Did he say a thing about these seeming daily killings in the town he represents ?
The outrage is being stoked by a press that wants to keep a sensational story alive instead of letting the process proceed.
I have no way of confirming or refuting your hypothetical .But I know that while everyone obsesses over this case ;scores of young black men are being killed in this country ,and it isn't white racists doing it.

Tom, Tom, Tom, go ahead start a thread about that if you want, but what of this case? Interesting you call for patients and due process here, but don't in the Chicago case. That's inconsistent, and distracting from this issue, in this case.

I mean where was your outrage when scores of black people were being killed FOR YEARS? To have equal protection, there has to be equal application. And a fair law in the first place. Ain't none of that happening here and if it weren't for the media attention there would be no investigation by any one. I know it takes time, but I say keep the pressure on. You just want it to go away.

And that's not a hypothetical.

You just want it to go away.

You make it sound like I have a personal interest in the case . I don't . I think for this to be ginned up to get the national attention it has ,there had to be other motives . Why would NBC fabricate the tapes unless they were trying to drive the story to a predetermined conclusion ? You call that justice ? I say it's media lynching .

I call it dishonest reporting.

Media lynching.

CNN is now backing off their claim about the racial slur in the 9-1-1 audio. They enhanced the audio and now it sounds like he said "cold" .

Also ABC did an enhancement of the police video of Zimmerman's head ,and now it appears that there is a wound.
George Zimmerman: Enhanced Video Shows Injury on Trayvon Martin Shooter's Head | Video - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-zimmerman-enhanced-video-shows-injury-trayvon-martin-16053206)

Zimmerman must be asking by now , 'Which office do I go to get my reputation back'?

I call it dishonest reporting.

And sometimes they're just in so deep with some folks they've become just plain stupid.

MSNBC duped: Network runs satirical fake news from Daily Kos as a real story (http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/05/msnbc-duped-network-runs-satirical-fake-news-from-daily-kos-as-a-real-story/#ixzz1rCX9q3k0)

I would call all of this extreme advocacy journalism. The type preferred by the majority of the media most of the time.

Tut

Sunday night in my fair city, two black men entered a local store and gunned down the store owner (http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2012-04-09/police-investigating-fatal-shooting-amarillo-store-owner), a Hispanic man described as "an easygoing, friendly man."

When are the national media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the New Black Panthers going to come seek justice for this man's family?

When are the national media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the New Black Panthers going to come seek justice for this man's family?Hello again, Steve:

When?? Never.. Why?? Because that issue isn't the same as the Trayvon issue... You think they are. They're not. That's where the right wing misses the boat. I don't know HOW that happens, but it does.

Let me explain again. This isn't about Zimmerman, or Trayvon, or black people, or Latin people. It has to do with racist cops/prosecutors and the law that allows people to shoot first and ask questions afterwards... Those ARE national issues.

I'm going to save the above, because I know I'll have to use it again. Or maybe I DO know.. You just don't want to discuss the national issues that this killing signifies, so you PRETEND they're not there.

excon

No it isn't the same. It's the same as the weekend in Chicago tom mentioned. The race baiters' time would be better served addressing the problems in their own community instead of stirring up racial tensions unnecessarily. Their perpetual outrage is misdirected. That's my point and I'm sticking to it.

When problems are not addressed and solved fairly, you can expect perpetual outrage, and maybe you can't see how race plays a part of this unfair application of the law, but you do have to acknowledge the fact that its happening all over the place, and if those who wish to shed light on what was swept under the rug are race baiters, then so be it, but you cannot deny what's happening, and see travesty and injustice as crime can you. The crime is in the system, and to lump institutional racism with street crimes, is an act of denial.

If you cannot separate the two, then you cannot resolve either. That's my point, and I will stick to that!

Not convinced there was an "unfair application of the law " in this case . The assumption that I don't accept is that the local cops or the DA did not arrest Zimmerman in the face of compelling evidence that he should be arrested .

Last weekend there was a shooting in a Miami funeral parlor that claimed 14 shot and 2 killed . One of the victims was 5-year-old Mckayla Bazile,who was shot in the leg .

I want to know why isn't Al Sharpton up here in NY protesting what is a horrible incident that happened about the same time as the Martin shooting ? Marine veteran Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr's crime was rolling over onto his medical alert device and setting off it's alarm. That led to a tragic killing worthy of a Shakespearean farce.


Chamberlain, who lived alone, suffered from a chronic heart condition and wore a pendant to signal LifeAid, a medical alert company, in case of trouble. That morning, the company called police after the pendant went off and Chamberlain failed to respond to a two-way audiobox installed in his apartment. He appears to have accidentally set off the device while he was sleeping. A LifeAid employee then requested that a squad car go by the house to check on him. When police arrived, they started banging on his door. Chamberlain yelled out to them that he was all right, that they weren't needed. The dead man's son, Kenneth Chamberlain Jr. and a pair of lawyers said LifeAid's audiobox recorded every sound inside the apartment. They listened to the recording in February in the office of Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore, though authorities have not released it publicly. According to the official police version, the officers heard loud noises inside and thought someone else might be in danger. They said they needed to force their way inside to make sure everything was okay. But Chamberlain refused to open the door for them, according to the lawyers who listened to the audio recording. He was angry at being disturbed by the loud banging and by several police cars and fire engines. He became increasingly agitated as he saw more police arriving with guns drawn. A nearly hour-long standoff ensued. Chamberlain's niece, Tonyia Greenhill, who lived in an apartment upstairs, came down and tried to talk with police, but was ignored. Her uncle sounded scared and was begging the police through the door to leave him alone, she recalled. One of the family's lawyers is Mayo Bartlett, a former Westchester assistant district attorney. He and the dead man's son said someone can be heard screaming at Chamberlain on the LifeAid tape: “I don't give a f--k, n----r, open the door!” One of the people banging outside was also reportedly heard yelling: “I need to use your bathroom to pee!” Others were taunting Chamberlain's military service after they discovered he was a former Marine. The LifeAid dispatcher, who was listening to every word of the commotion, offers at one point to contact family members of Chamberlain to intercede, and even tries to cancel the call for police assistance. But a police officer is heard saying “We don't need any mediators,” according to the lawyers. Two other video cameras captured part of the events that night, and the family and its lawyers have seen those as well. One is a security camera in the hall of the building. Another is attached to the stun gun police used. Those reportedly show police prying the door partly open. At one point, according to Kenneth Chamberlain Jr. a metal object is slipped through the gap in the door and falls in the hallway. “It's hard to tell what it is, but that could be what police are saying was a hatchet,” the son said. The tape runs for several more minutes while cops and firefighters work to remove the hinges to the door. When they finally do, a camera reveals Chamberlain Sr. standing inside his apartment, wearing only boxer shorts, with his arms at his side and his hands empty, according to the son and the family's lawyers. “The minute they got in the house, they didn't even give him one command,” Bartlett said. “They never mentioned 'put your hands up.' They never told him to lay down on the bed. The first thing they did... you could see the Taser light up... and you could see it going directly toward him.” Why anyone would use a stun gun on a man with a known heart condition is astounding in itself. But the cameras don't capture anything more after that point, according to the son and lawyers. Police say Chamberlain later came at them with a knife, and one cop fired two shots. More than four months after the incident, authorities have refused to identify that cop.
Marine vet shot, killed by cops - New York Daily News (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-04/news/31283015_1_official-police-version-grand-jury-cops)

This case is much more representative of the point you are trying to make. But the race baiters have clinged to the Martin case even as the narrative have unravelled as the facts have been revealled .

Hello again:

If one of MY favorite lobbying groups was getting KILLED by these protests, I'd want you to look over THERE and NOT over here, too..

Alec is such a friendly name. So is toast.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

For every NRA there are equivant Brady Campaigns . You guys are selective about which lobby groups you would legally curtail.

You guys are selective about which lobby groups you would legally curtail.Hello again, tom:

Yeah, we are. You aren't?

But we don't want to curtail them "LEGALLY", as you imply, but ECONOMICALLY, which works so much better and faster too.

excon

Like unions, who are arguing in Indiana that the right-to-work law violates their free speech because making union dues voluntary cuts their funding (http://www.ibj.com/union-says-right-to-work-law-violates-free-speech/PARAMS/article/33718).

Ba ha ha ha ha!

Funny that corporations are people too, and allows for unlimited, undesclosed "free speech", but unions are not, and need to be restricted. But you are the guy, hardworking blue collar, that thinks that its okay for those corporations and the rich to be called "job creators", while the extract money from the economy and create sweat shops overseas for profit.

You can't afford to help poor, and working poor, or victims of the job creators not creating jobs, but you allow those that have raked in all kinds of loot, to rake in even more.

And they still have not lived up to the label of "job creators"! You and Tom won't be happy until all the work for middle class families is done in a sweat shop, and the poor are deported, or dead.

You guys are good at villifying those that are denied equal treatment, and protection under the law, because equal, and fair are dirty words to the right.

Like unions, who are arguing in Indiana that the right-to-work law violates their free speech because making union dues voluntary cuts their funding (http://www.ibj.com/union-says-right-to-work-law-violates-free-speech/PARAMS/article/33718).

Ba ha ha ha ha!

45 pages?/ There is a lot more there than just ONE argument. Read it!This is from your link,


The argument is just one of many tucked into the hefty 45-page brief the union filed in federal court late last month in response to the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. A hearing on the state's motion is scheduled for April 26 in U.S. District Court in Hammond.

Along with other arguments based on state and federal constitutions and federal labor law, the union cites the 2010 Citizens United decision, which struck down on free-speech grounds restrictions on corporations' and union spending on advertising endorsing or opposing certain candidates.

45 pages?/ There is a lot more there than just ONE argument. read it!This is from your link,

That's why I furnish the source so you guys can make up your own minds. So how many people were forced to give money to Citizens United?

Forced, a bunch of rich people with the same agenda, and bookoo bucks?? RICH people united would be a far more accurate title.

Again... who else forces members to contribute in the form of dues; and contribute them to politicians for favors ?

I am a union member, and have never been forced to do anything. Union dues are no more forced than country club dues. Your facts are severely twisted, and ill informed.

I am a union member, and have never been forced to do anything. Union dues are no more forced than country club dues. Your facts are severely twisted, and ill informed.

Um, don't you live in Texas, a right to work state?

Lemme explain again. This isn't about Zimmerman, or Trayvon, or black people, or Latin people. It has to do with racist cops/prosecutors and the law that allows people to shoot first and ask questions afterwards... Those ARE national issues.

Well, the special prosecutor is set to press charges against Zimmerman says WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_story.html?wpisrc=al_national). Let the system do its thing.

Interesting.. one DA told the cops that there was not enough evidence to charge ;and the special prosecutor comes down with the most severe charges she could've filed.. 2nd Degree murder. That is quite a leap.
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
Second Degree Murder Definition - FindLaw (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-definition.html)

Best guess is that the prosecutor has her hands on some evidence that was not available to the kangaroo court of public opinion.

Um, don't you live in Texas, a right to work state?

Just because Wal Marts has no union, doesn't mean Ford doesn't. A right to work state doesn't make unions illegal for anyone. The workers can decide if they want to form one or not.

If it weren't for local unions, you would not have the benefits you have now.

Thought you knew that.

Finally the process of justice can began for Trayvon Martin, based on facts and not feelings, under due process, and equal protection under the law. As I recall that's what the so called race baiter's were asking for. Not take the shooters word for self defense, and let him go!

Best guess is that the prosecutor has her hands on some evidence that was not available to the kangaroo court of public opinion.Hello again, tom:

Don't forget the keystone cops and/or the local prosecutor. It was THEIR job to find the evidence in the first place. Somehow, they MISSED it.

These charges would NOT have happened WITHOUT the public pressure brought by LEFT WINGERS, that you so decried.. Righty's wanted us to look at Chicago. Look at Texas.. Look ANYWHERE but Sanford, Florida. What you've missed from the beginning, is the fact that in ALL of those cases you pointed us to, the state said that a CRIME occurred. In Trayvons case, the STATE said nothing happened. THAT is what the outrage was about. I don't know how that got by you. Frankly, I'd be ashamed to be on the side of a law that allows people to shoot first and ask questions afterwards..

Besides, aren't you the guys who b1tch and moan about criminals getting off on a technicality?? Isn't this law nothing more than a technicality?? It IS!

excon

These charges would NOT have happened WITHOUT the public pressure brought by LEFT WINGERS, that you so decried..

excon



So is it now mob mentality law? Is it OK to make up law since the left wingers have made death threats and bounties against the man accused even without a trial? How far would you lke to go? The Special Prosecutor is a elected position. She was appointed to do something because others were making noise. It doesn't matter if the law is followed just so long as justice is served. This is a joke. They are doing it to relieve pressure from the extreme ends. Its not about law. What is going to happen and be said if he is found not guilty ? Will the left rise up and riot ?

So peaceful demonstration is now MOB MENTALITY?? While I agree some, on both sides may have gotten carried away, and they are the exceptions, not the rule, as its looney for a total of 6 guys to offer a million dollar bounty, and ridicules for some one to paint "long live zimmerman" on the Ohio State black student union building.

Both done by the stupid, and ignorant.

Ex ; I'm willing to give the special prosecutor the benefit of the doubt that she found new evidence that warrants a 2nd degree murder charge. It's evidence you and I haven't seen because with the evidence that is public knowledge,I don't see how that charge could stick. More likely however ,this is a charge brought about by public pressure,and not the evidence.

Also would like to see where Zimmerman could get a fair trial with the President and the Att General making public comment on the case... in the case of Holder... making them in front of an audience of an organization founded by Al Sharpton (National Action Network).

So is it now mob mentality law? They are doing it to relieve pressure from the extreme ends. Its not about law. What is going to happen and be said if he is found not guilty ? Will the left rise up and riot ?Hello dad:

Couple things... If the special prosecutor is bringing charges for POLITICAL reasons and not LEGAL ones, and he's acquitted, there COULD be riots, and I'd SUPPORT them. I'd be PISSED off to be placated like that.

I HOPE that isn't her motivation. I HOPE she thinks she can get a conviction. I HOPE the law is more than a political tool. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't know you were so calloused about it.

I have experience with southern cops. I believe, from the get go, the cops had NO intention of charging Zimmerman and they didn't. Case closed.

That is until some people took advantage of their Constitutional rights (which you call a mob), and let the government know about their displeasure. In my view, civil disobedience is the HIGHEST form of patriotism. And, you call it a mob. Fortunately, this is America. It worked. The case got a SECOND look with UNBIASED eyes. And, those eyes saw something the bunglers/racist cops didn't.

Now, I don't know how people are going to react. I don't speak for them.

excon

Guilty or not guilty the important fact here is the evidence will be tried in a court of law, not a kangaroo court of cops and public opinion and then justice will have been seen to be done

The point Clete, is this should have been done when it happened, then no public outrage would have been needed. Justice delayed, is justice denied.

guilty or not guilty the important fact here is the evidence will be tried in a court of law, not a kangaroo court of cops and public opinion and then justice will have been seen to be doneHello clete:

Nahhhh. That's not important.. Neither Zimmerman OR his guilt, is the issue here. What IS important, is that CIVIL disobedience WORKED to right a wrong. The ISSUE is the law, which allowed a killer to walk free, or the racist cops and/or prosecutor who let a killer walk free - or BOTH.

excon

I don't see where the 'stand your ground' law is relevant . It is either murder or self defense.

Just because Wal Marts has no union, doesn't mean Ford doesn't. A right to work state doesn't make unions illegal for anyone. The workers can decide if they want to form one or not.

Doesn't matter if a union exists or not and it has nothing to do with Walmart. In a right to work state the union can't force you to pay union dues. In nearly half the states they can. I thought you knew that.

I don't see where the 'stand your ground' law is relevent . It is either murder or self defense.

Exactly, she charged him with 2nd degree murder in spite of SYG, so ex's argument is out the window..

I don't see where the 'stand your ground' law is relevent . It is either murder or self defense.Hello again, tom:

So you say. His attorney will say 'stand your ground' DOES apply. I think the law gives killers like Zimmerman a pass. I think the judge will agree.

excon

Meanwhile in Chi-town this year... 120 killed and 500 wounded.

meanwhile in Chi-town this year ... 120 killed and 500 wounded.Hello again, tom:

In how many of those killings did the state brush their hands and say, nothing happened here??

excon

Wonder if the New Black Panther Party will put a bounty out for this drive by shooter ?
Mom, 1-year-old daughter shot while sleeping: 'A terrible thing' - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-two-shot-in-west-pullman-20120411,0,5958042.story)
Wonder if Jesse Jackson will lead a protest march ?

Wonder if the New Black Panther Party will put a bounty out for this drive by shooter ?Hello again, tom:

Those 4 guys probably don't have $25 between them. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Hello dad:

Couple things... If the special prosecutor is bringing charges for POLITICAL reasons and not LEGAL ones, and he's acquitted, there COULD be riots, and I'd SUPPORT them. I'd be PISSED off to be placated like that.

I HOPE that isn't her motivation. I HOPE she thinks she can get a conviction. I HOPE the law is more than a political tool. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't know you were so calloused about it.

I have experience with southern cops. I believe, from the get go, the cops had NO intention of charging Zimmerman and they didn't. Case closed.

That is until some people took advantage of their Constitutional rights (which you call a mob), and let the government know about their displeasure. In my view, civil disobedience is the HIGHEST form of patriotism. And, you call it a mob. Fortunately, this is America. It worked. The case got a SECOND look with UNBIASED eyes. And, those eyes saw something the bunglers/racist cops didn't.

Now, I dunno how people are gonna react. I don't speak for them.

excon

Here is the deal. This woman is a rouge. She pushs buttons and tries to push herself into the news. She tries for what she can and then throws is lessor charges as many as she can to try to make something stick. Have you read her bio?

http://theobamacrat.com/2012/03/28/special-prosecutor-states-attorney-ms-angela-b-corey/


Another question I have is why circumvent the grand jury process if her evidence is so strong? Smells bad to me and she is grandstanding. That can only hurt the innocent.

Special prosecutors are assigned for one purpose only... to prosecute. All one needs to do is remember the screwing of Scooter Libby.

This is classic strategery.. She over charged and will settle for a lesser plea... that is if the mob will permit it.

This is classic strategery .. She over charged and will settle for a lesser plea ....that is if the mob will permit it.Hello again, tom:

I don't know. You sound positively sympathetic to the killer.. Ordinarily, as a card carrying right winger, you'd LOVE a prosecutor to over charge. Do you remember all those OTHER killings you keep pointing us to?? Probably wouldn't bother you one iota if those killers got overcharged. If one of 'em got off on a technicality, you'd be pissed. But, not this one.

You wonder why black on black crime doesn't bother the black community.. I wonder why white on black crime doesn't bother you.

excon

Poor Scooter Libby, took the bullet for his president. Like Ollie North, dope dealer, a right wing hero.

Show me the instance where I have been a cheer leader to prosecutors on these pages .

Poor Scooter Libby, took the bullet for his president. Like Ollie North, dope dealer, a right wing hero.

Nope... took the bullet for Richard Armitage's mistake and Colin Powell's coverup.

Ex Alan Dershowitz agrees with my statements about the special prosecutor . He must be a racist too

Ex Alan Dershowitz agrees with my statements about the special prosecutor . He must be a racist tooHello again, tom:

I, too, agree that she overcharged. But it doesn't piss me off like it does you. I saw the interview with Dershowitz. It didn't piss him off either.

excon

Not pissed off at all... just an observation.. I don't have a predisposed opinion of this case as many people do.

It is what it is, that's the process. At least we now have started a process, instead of ignoring it. It took 2 months of outrage to even get a process going in this case.

Just an observation.

Just curious, should this guy be charged with murder, too?

Texas father shouldn't be arrested for killing man who tried to molest his 4-year-old, residents say (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57451577-504083/texas-father-shouldnt-be-arrested-for-killing-man-who-tried-to-molest-his-4-year-old-residents-say/)

Hello again, Steve:

So, if murder is justified, it's OK. Some right to lifer you are.

excon

Hell NO!!

Hello again, Steve:

So, if murder is justified, it's ok. Some right to lifer you are.

excon

Yep, I'd be protecting my innocent 4-year-old's life just like this dad did, at all cost. He was justified - aborting an innocent child because you don't want to be inconvenienced or wanted a boy is not.

What? A blastula is not a 4 year old boy! Do you eat eggs too? Then you're a murderer. Do you masturbate? Then you have offended god!

Still just 12 years old, NK?

Well if you're going to go all fundamentalist you might as well not pick what you're fundie about. No?

See how I ignore you're little barbs? I'm not hyper-sensitive about everything.

Yep, I'd be protecting my innocent 4-year-old's lifeHello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. A couple whacks to the head would have done that.. Anything more is murder. Interesting how you try to justify MURDER. I thought right wingers were FOR law and order... Guess not.

excon

Well if you're going to go all fundamentalist you might as well not pick and choose what you're fundie about. No?

See how I ignore you're little barbs? I'm not hyper-sensitive about everything.

And I'm not being the least bit sensitive or going "all fundamentalist." I'm just responding to the level of maturity you display here.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh.. A couple whacks to the head would have done that.. Anything more is murder. Interesting how you try to justify MURDER. I thought right wingers were FOR law and order... Guess not.

excon

So you think he should be charged with murder, eh? Why didn't you just say so in the first place? That was the question I asked.

Well I am only 19 so...

At least they got George and his wife behind bars.

NK, I was being generous with 12.

Hello again,

So, Zimmerman is a LIAR. So's his wife (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-wife-arrested-perjury-charge/story?id=16552075#.T99JYcUwA4Q). Whoda thunk?

excon

Yea I think Tal mentioned that a few days go.

Yea I think Tal mentioned that a few days go.Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, well, I'm old and slow.

excon

I hope to get there some day.

Good thing they got a picture of her in the paper for the vigilantes who have issued death threats.

Good thing they got a picture of her in the paper for the vigilantes who have issued death threats.Hello again, tom:

What?? Those 5 black fellows who don't have a nickel to rub together between them?? Those guys??

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

My question is this... and I don't know the answer . Is money donated to a defense fund considered their money ? I mean ;had they tried to use it for bail would that have been a legitimate use of the funds ?
Meanwhile I think the most likely scenario is that they will use perjury charges against his wife to pressure Zimmerman to plea to a lesser charge.

My question is this ... and I don't know the answer . Is money donated to a defense fund considered their money ? Not sure. What has happened in the past in this respect? Defense funds have been a fund raising tool for decades.

Is money donated to a defense fund considered their money ?Hello tom:

The word "fund" has no meaning in law. So, it depends on HOW the fund was set up, IF it was set up at all. My guess is that because it happened so fast, and they had no representation at that time, that money was just sent to them for the purposes of being used as a defense fund...

If that is how it transpired, then the money is theirs to do with as they choose. However, if you Google his defense fund, you may find that it's set up a little differently. I didn't go there, so I wouldn't know. I don't even know if there IS a place to go.

However, I would guess the authorities wouldn't have have called it HIS money if it wasn't. Then again, this is Florida. They might.

excon

Didja hear? There is no evidence of racial profiling in this case .
In Trayvon Martin case, FBI reports no evidence Zimmerman a racist | Nation & World | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018674328_zimmerman13.html?syndication=rss)

But yes ;he did profile the hoodie when he decided to follow Trayvon .

Didja hear? There is no evidence of racial profiling in this case ..Hello again, tom:

Didja hear? I don't care. I didn't say he profiled Trayvon. I didn't say he was a racist. In fact, my problem with the case has NOTHING to do with Zimmerman OR Trayvon.. It has to do with the Stand Your Ground law, and the cops behavior..

But, you can distract us with that other stuff if you want.

excon

Whatever he did, for whatever reason, a child died. Giving him an out for answering for it is unacceptable. The law is flawed in both intent, application, and enforcement.

2 postings with multiple responses ;mostly dealing with the allegation that Zimmerman is racist ;and now it's a distraction when the charge proves bogus. Bet there are crickets chirping when Al Sharpton is asked for a comment.

Hello again, tom:

Didja hear? I don't care. I didn't say he profiled Trayvon. I didn't say he was a racist. in fact, my problem with the case has NOTHING to do with Zimmerman OR Trayvon.. It has to do with the Stand Your Ground law, and the cops behavior..

But, you can distract us with that other stuff if you want.

excon

Are you against the castle doctrine too? Or is it that self defense is the issue when the police are minutes away?

The police handled it according to laws of the time. They did what they could and investigated. Now we have a rouge prosocutor that feels they have to try to make anything stick. That is who your energies should be directed at.

Read the first page of this thread, I think you'll get ex's opinion of the castle doctrine.

Read the first page of this thread, I think you'll get ex's opinion of the castle doctrine.Hello again, dad and Steve:

Of course, I DO support the castle doctrine... So, I had to go back to read the page where I said I didn't... Well, it's as I figured. I didn't say that at all. Not even close...

Maybe the nuances of the law are too hard for some to comprehend.

excon

So you do like it? Sure is hard to tell what you like and what you don't these days.

So you do like it? Sure is hard to tell what you like and what you don't these days.Hello again, Steve:

I know... When I say I don't like to be asked for my citizenship, you respond with, why don't you like to be asked for your drivers license...

I don't know if that has to do with your READING skills, or my WRITING skills.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I know... When I say I don't like to be asked for my citizenship, you respond with, why don't you like to be asked for your drivers license...

I dunno if that has to do with your READING skills, or my WRITING skills.

excon

The issue was driving on the interstate which requires a drivers license which is no-brainer in relating the two, as opposed to thinking it's the Gestapo asking a Polish Jew for his papers.

Seems clear to me my reading skills are just fine.

The issue was driving on the interstate which requires a drivers license which is no-brainer in relating the two, as opposed to thinking it's the Gestapo asking a Polish Jew for his papers.
Hello again, Steve:

I don't know how you and I look at the same thing, and see TWO different things.. Maybe it's the water...

If you look again, the cop, is in the first instance, a BORDER PATROL cop. He DOESN'T ask for the guy's drivers license... He asks him what citizenship he as. It has NOTHING to do drivers licenses... In fact, FEDERAL cops can't ask for drivers licenses because they don't patrol the highways... If somebody doesn't have one, a federal cop can't even issue a ticket or arrest the guy...

So, your drivers license BS is a red herring, or a straw man.. I don't know WHICH, and I don't care.. But it AIN'T what's going on in THIS conversation.

If I'm pulled over by a REAL state cop who asks for my license and registration, OF COURSE I'll provide it... But, if a FEDERAL cop stops me and asks me for my papers, I'll resist, and I'll RESIST again...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno how you and I look at the same thing, and see TWO different things.. Maybe it's the water...

If you look again, the cop, is in the first instance, a BORDER PATROL cop. He DOESN'T ask for the guy's drivers license... He asks him what citizenship he as. It has NOTHING to do drivers licenses... In fact, FEDERAL cops can't ask for drivers licenses because they don't patrol the highways... If somebody doesn't have one, a federal cop can't even issue a ticket or arrest the guy...

So, your drivers license BS is a red herring, or a straw man.. I dunno WHICH, and I don't care.. But it AIN'T what's going on in THIS conversation.

If I'm pulled over by a REAL state cop who asks for my license and registration, OF COURSE I'll provide it... But, if a FEDERAL cop stops me and asks me for my papers, I'll resist, and I'll RESIST again...

excon

Exie, my use of the term "drivers license" is analogous. It doesn't matter if he asks his citizenship, asks for his license, asks if you're carrying produce from outside of Arizona or asks if he's seen Batman; if it's a Border Patrol officer, highway patrol or a local yokel.

Drive on the roads and you may be subject to a checkpoint of some form or another. It's not a big deal and it's certainly not Nazi Germany.

Here is stand your ground in reverse. I think the officers should face jail time as well as the city have their pants sued off them.

Deputies shoot, kill man after knocking on wrong door | Watch the video - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/video/deputies-shoot-kill-man-knocking-163819466.html)

Here is stand your ground in reverse. I think the officers should face jail time as well as the city have thier pants sued off of them.Hello dad:

Don't hold your breath... You heard them justifying themselves.. He pointed a gun at a cop, they said.. OF COURSE he's going to get killed..

excon

Hello dad:

Don't hold your breath... You heard them justifying themselves.. He pointed a gun at a cop, they said.. OF COURSE he's gonna get killed..

excon

I know. What was he thinking?? Right ?


If they had indetified who it was at the door then I wouldn't be giving it a second thought. But the fact that they didn't do that and furthermore its not policy to do that innocent people are going to die.

More and continuing news. Looks like some decisions were made in court today and the trial is expected to move forward around June 10th.

Read about it here. Both articles are pretty much the same just different sources.

Judge limits texts, photos in Trayvon Martin case (http://news.yahoo.com/judge-limits-texts-photos-trayvon-martin-case-150351912.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UYwqaZRejEAy1jQtDMD)

Trayvon Martin Drug Photos Can't Be Mentioned, Says Judge (http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-drug-photos-cant-163551201.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UYwqaZRejEAzVjQtDMD)

Kangaroo court. There is no way that Zimmerman will be allowed to be acquitted .the fix is in,

ORLANDO, Fla.: Lawyer: Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/29/3422519/lawyer-zimmerman-prosecutor-withheld.html)

Isn't withholding evidence an obstruction of justice ? On Trayvon's cell phone is a video he took of his 2 friends giving a beat down to a homeless man.

The courts will rule on the legalities, and Zimmerman can raise cash from it for his lawyers.

Hello again, tom:


On Trayvon's cell phone is a video he took of his 2 friends giving a beat down to a homeless man.Well, there you go.. That shows he needed killing..

Excon

Yep should be more of it

Hello again, tom:

Well, there ya go.. That shows he needed killing..

excon

It shows he isn't that angelic young man that the press tried to feed to us. It lends credence to Zimmerman's claim that he shot in self defense.

Yeah, the young fool had no right to confront his stalker. It cost him his life. He profiled a young kid and stepped over his authority killed his victim. Case closed.

Hunting season for young black guys is open for white guys who have a right to bear arms. The right wing message is loud and clear. The kid was no angel, but neither was his killer.

Yup, it's open season: Miami Cops Choke Hold Teen for Staring at Them. A Puppy is Involved. - Hit & Run : Reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/29/miami-cops-beat-up-teen-for-staring-at-t)

Yeah, the young fool had no right to confront his stalker. It cost him his life. He profiled a young kid and stepped over his authority killed his victim. Case closed.

Hunting season for young black guys is open for white guys who have a right to bear arms. The right wing message is loud and clear. The kid was no angel, but neither was his killer.

Can you guys be any more over the top? That was pathetic.

Hello again,

So, no matter HOW this trial turns out, I'm NOT going to go out and destroy a few cars. But, I have the feeling that some people will. Do you have that feeling too?

excon

Hello again,

So, no matter HOW this trial turns out, I'm NOT gonna go out and destroy a few cars. But, I have the feeling that some people will. Do you have that feeling too?

excon

Im not so sure. I think its mostly going to depend on how the media shows it. Im not going to make bets its not going to happen but this isn't as cut and dry as some are trying to push it. I believe the evidence will speak for itself.

I don't think this is LA 1992 ;at least I hope not.

I sure wouldn't want to be a juror in this case, with most crimes in the news, I usually know which side I'm on by the end of the trial, for example I think O.J. Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias were guilty, but with this case I just don't know. Both Zimmerman and Martin may have been in the wrong, and it seems impossible to know who assaulted who first. It also appears that Martin wasn't as clean cut as his family portrays him, although the jury won't be allowed to hear details about his past.

Well now that the trial is over and the verdict in. We will be starting on stage 2 of this fiasco. I see the many groups including the NAACP calling for charges against Zimmerman for "racial profiling".

I guess not guilty isn't something they can tolerate. After all the media is trying to do to fuel the fire of race.

Unlike them I defer to the jury. Seriously, Zimmerman had the deck stacked against him with the media, the race baiters like Sharpton, the NAACP, the DoJ and the president himself leading the way and they couldn't justify a conviction. It was a tragedy for sure but America is not about appeasing a segment of society and getting a preferred outcome, that isn't justice.

The criminal trail is over but the debate will rage on as racial profiling continues to be a hot topic in to many areas of the law and behavior. The debate is important because there are just to many similar cases that never receive the attention that this one did.

The criminal trail is over but the debate will rage on as racial profiling continues to be a hot topic in to many areas of the law and behavior. The debate is important because there are just to many similar cases that never receive the attention that this one did.

So you bought into the meme that this was a "white" guy profiling a black kid?

Odds are that the number of shootings this weekend in Chi-town will rival the Valentine's Day Massacre... in fact every weekend that is so.

You sound like Zimmerman, walking home with candy is suspicious in your mind.

Nope but walking home near the overhang of other people's homes instead of on the walkway would be suspicious to a neighhood watch person who joined and helped organize the neighborhood watch because of a rash of recent break ins.

You sound like Zimmerman, walking home with candy is suspicious in your mind.

It can be depending on the situation. And if the person is out of place for the environment they are in then there is justification for caution.

And if the person is out of place for the environment they are in then there is justification for caution.Hello again, dad:

WHAT is out of place in the act of walking home with candy? Would being black in a white neighborhood be it?

Excon

Hello again, dad:

WHAT is out of place in the act of walking home with candy? Would being black in a white neighborhood be it??

excon

Its could. But it can also be a young person in a retirement community. Or one of many situations. Don't forget the community this took place in was a gated community and the person walking through wasn't of known origin from the neighborhood.

There are many variables to it besides the black / white issue.

It can be depending on the situation. And if the person is out of place for the enviroment they are in then there is justification for caution.

He died 60 feet from his dads home who was a neighbor of the shooter. How are you out of place at your dads home? I don't begrudge caution, but common sense dictates waiting for the cops you just called. He was told this by the 911 dispatcher. That's the first thing they teach you when you start a neighborhood watch, never pursue. He did the opposite.

He knew the cops were coming. Where was his caution? Where was his common sense in a mixed gated community?

As if the cops are always timely. Not in my neighborhood.

He died 60 feet from his dads home who was a neighbor of the shooter. How are you out of place at your dads home? I don't begrudge caution, but common sense dictates waiting for the cops you just called. He was told this by the 911 dispatcher. That's the first thing they teach you when you start a neighborhood watch, never pursue. He did the opposite.

He knew the cops were coming. Where was his caution? Where was his common sense in a mixed gated community?

There is no video so I can't answer for that part. As far as him being close to "home" he wasn't living with his dad the whole time growing up it was a recent event. So there may have been circumstances that caused the situation / confrontation in the first place.

If you believe what Zimmerman had said he was atacked on the way back to his car. Also at no time did Treyvon call the police.

There is no video so I can't answer for that part. As far as him being close to "home" he wasnt living with his dad the whole time growing up it was a recent event. So there may have been circumstances that caused the situation / confrontation in the first place.

If you believe what Zimmerman had said he was atacked on the way back to his car. Also at no time did Treyvon call the police.

The dead kid was visiting his divorced dad. Hardly a crime, and my point was the common sense thing to do when suspicious people are around is to wait for the cops and if he didn't have a gun, that's what he would have done.

The dead kid was visiting his divorced dad. Hardly a crime, and my point was the common sense thing to do when suspicious people are around is to wait for the cops and if he didn't have a gun, that's what he would have done.

Your only guessing. Also maybe if he didn't have a gun this whole thing would have been a non issue as he would have been dead.

The fact that was undisputed in this case was that Martin threw the 1st punch ;got the upper hand and was ponding Zimmerman. It is reasonable to conclude that Zimmerman felt his life was threatened . Self defense is the only reasonable outcome of this trial .

Now you are guessing as to whether Zimmerman would have been beaten to death.

News busters has it spot on.



George Zimmerman Acquitted, Media Guilty | NewsBusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/07/13/zimmerman-found-not-guilty)

Besides propelling the case into the national spotlight, the biased coverage of some media outlets did apparently have at least one other effect. One witness, Jeannee Manalao, stated that she had mistakenly believed Martin to have been younger than he was at the time of his death because the media had only shown older photos of the Florida teen.

The trial was marred by numerous incidents of sloppy and deliberately unfair reporting. NBC News is currently being sued by Zimmerman for editing the audio of a telephone call that Zimmerman made to 911 during the night of the altercation with Martin. In the NBC-edited recording, Zimmerman is made to sound as if he was following Martin because he was black. The false edit was first exposed by NewsBusters. It is highly likely that Zimmerman's victory today will increase his ability to win his suit against NBC.

CNN embarrassed itself by falsely claiming that on the 911 call, Zimmerman had used an archaic racial slur to describe black Americans. In fact, as even the prosecution later admitted, he had used the word punks. At least the cable news channel did not resort to fraudulent editing though.

One of the other persistent flaws in the media's coverage of the case against Zimmerman were reports claiming he was "white" when in fact, he is Hispanic, white, and also part black. For months on end, Zimmerman was repeatedly described as a "white Hispanic" even though other people of mixed race such as President Obama are never described as "white blacks."

Additionally, left-leaning media were fond of repeating false statements favorable to the prosecution such as the claim that Zimmerman got out of his car despite being instructed to remain in it. In fact, he was already out of his car  when the 911 dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that." According to Zimmerman, he turned around and tried to return to his vehicle and was subsequently confronted by Martin. Biased outlets almost always ignored the evidence which clearly suggested that it was Martin who initiated their conversation and Zimmerman's testimony that Martin initiated the violence. They also rarely reported the fact that Martin circled Zimmerman's car while he was in it, looking at him menacingly.

Additionally, viewers and readers were repeatedly subjected to hours on end of speculation and hypotheticals about how the fatal confrontation could have been avoided--but only if Zimmerman had acted differently. The speculators never discussed how Martin's father was providing almost no supervision to him, never talked about how the situation would have been prevented if Martin had not been suspended from school due to his own behavior. They also never discussed how the telephone evidence in the trial clearly indicated that Martin had more than enough time to return to his father's girlfriend's residence if he truly had been in fear of his life. Most Americans also likely were unaware of Martin's admitted love of fighting.

The public was also subjected to countless hours of ignorant pronouncements about if Zimmerman had started the fight, that would determine his guilt or innocence. Rarely were viewers ever told the truth that self-defense law in Florida is about whether the surviving person rightfully feared for his life, regardless of who started the physical confrontation.

While the public couldn't get away from information about Zimmerman's run-ins with local criminals who happened to be black, the public was rarely told about other facts about him such as that he fought successfully to get justice for an elderly black man who was beaten by the son of a white police officer, how he mentored black youth, or even that he was a supporter of Barack Obama and not some sort of far-right white nationalist.

The trial of Zimmerman would likely have remained strictly a local news story had it not been for the antics of MSNBC's Al Sharpton who was advising Martin's parents on how to gain more publicity (and also calling for Zimmerman's arrest) while simultaneously serving as a commentator for the Democratic network. Despite criticism from other media outlets, MSNBC never told Sharpton to choose between his dueling roles even though it harmed their overall reputation.

In the end, it is regrettable that Trayvon Martin died that fateful night. What is also regrettable is how America's elite news media willingly went along with a smear campaign designed by racist frauds like Al Sharpton who were looking to boost their own fortunes at the expense of an innocent man. George Zimmerman is not a perfect man. But he did not deserve to become a real-life version of Emmanuel Goldstein.

the fact that was undisputed in this case was that Martin threw the 1st punch ;got the upper hand and was ponding Zimmerman. It is reasonable to conclude that Zimmerman felt his life was threatened . Self defense is the only reasonable outcome of this trial .

That's the shooters story, but hardly an undisputed fact. What if the dead kid was standing his ground against a strange stalker? Stand your ground is a lousy law.

But Tom where you live profiling and shooting unarmed black people is an accepted practice, while you decry Chicago and Detroit. Little wonder why you see this as acceptable behavior and outcome.

Now you are guessing as to whether Zimmerman would have been beaten to death.

No I'm saying it is reasonable to say that he thought his life was in danger.. And that is the only standard needed for a self defense defense.

Maybe the standard for reasonable needs to be better defined, and raised. A gun owner and neighborhood watch captain, should have the highest standards of common sense and behavior, and sorry Zimmerman is scraping the bottom in both.

Stand your ground is a lousy law.


Why is it a lousy law?

Politicians are weighing in. My favorite is from the next mayor of NYC.



Anthony Weiner        ✔ @anthonyweiner
Keep Trayvon's family in our prayers. Deeply unsatisfying verdict. Trial by jury is our only choice in a democracy

As opposed to what, a trial by media? Public opinion? What?

NationalJournal.com - GOP Congressman: We'll Be Talking About the Trayvon Martin Case 'For a Long Time to Come' - Sunday, July 14, 2013 (http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/politics/gop-congressman-we-ll-be-talking-about-the-trayvon-martin-case-for-a-long-time-to-come-20130713)

Empowering and encouraging a gun owner to shoot because he feels in danger. You open the door for subjective thinking, without accounting for the part thinking and action of the shooter plays in the situation.

You cannot put yourself in a dangerous position, and then say you were defending yourself. If you cannot follow proper procedure or have one in place, it a lousy law.

You cannot put yourself in a dangerous position, and then say you were defending yourself.
Why not ?

Empowering and encouraging a gun owner to shoot because he feels in danger. You open the door for subjective thinking, without accounting for the part thinking and action of the shooter plays in the situation.

You cannot put yourself in a dangerous position, and then say you were defending yourself. If you cannot follow proper procedure or have one in place, it a lousy law.

That is not true at all and has been shown in debate before. The door swings both ways on self defense. Im thinking that part your not happy with is someone owning guns and having a right to carry them.

why not ?
Guess I'll go strolling on 16th Street in Lawndale (Chicago) after dark tonight to see how it has changed since I student taught there in 1967. I'll be packing my husband's Mauser.. Hope I don't have any problems.

Guess I'll go strolling on 16th Street in Lawndale (Chicago) after dark tonight to see how it has changed since I student taught there in 1967. I'll be packing my husband's Mauser..Hope I don't have any problems.

Good luck with that. Being as how is Chicago and not a gun friendly city then the police aren't going to let you walk around like that.

Good luck with that. Being as how is Chicago and not a gun friendly city then the police arent going to let you walk around like that.
No one will see my Mauser. It's for self defense.

That is not true at all and has been shown in debate before. The door swings both ways on self defense. Im thinking that part your not happy with is someone owning guns and having a right to carry them.

Despite the right to bear arm, some are not as responsible as others, and tragedy results from a lack of good judgment. Unfortunately the standard for an idiot and a good citizen to own a gun are the same.

Guess I'll go strolling on 16th Street in Lawndale (Chicago) after dark tonight to see how it has changed since I student taught there in 1967. I'll be packing my husband's Mauser..Hope I don't have any problems.

Even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, should that mean he loses the right to defend himself when faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?

By the way ;in all likelihood ,Zimmerman is immune from civil action.

Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title XLVI Crimes Section 776.012 Use of force in defense of person. - Florida Attorney Resources - Florida Laws (http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.032.html)

Even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, should that mean he loses the right to defend himself when faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?
He left his vehicle and followed him only because he had a gun. No, gun, no follow. He would have waited for the police to show up.

I agree with the verdict, but Zimmerman will never be free when it comes to public opinion and the media, I just hope he can regain a normal life in the near future.

He left his vehicle and followed him only because he had a gun. No, gun, no follow. He would have waited for the police to show up.

That is a presumption not relevant to the jury deliberation. He has a legal right to act stupidly . Here in NY they expect people to be sheeple and take a pounding until the police arrive to shovel up the remains . In Fla. The law was quite clear. He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .

He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .
In this case, he was specifically told to stay in his vehicle.

that is a presumption not relevant to the jury deliberation. He has a legal right to act stupidly . Here in NY they expect people to be sheeple and take a pounding until the police arrive to shovel up the remains . In Fla. the law was quite clear. He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .

Canada is like NY too, people often get charged just for pointing a gun or firing warning shots at intruders in their own home.

Hello again, tom:

He was allowed to leave his car and not get sucker punched and pummeled .And, you know that HOW? Oh, that's right. Zimmerman said so, and you believe it hook line and sinker...

But, in the real world, we don't know WHO punched and pummeled WHO?

Excon

In this case, he was specifically told to stay in his vehicle.

You are aware that dispatchers are not police officers right? For the most part they are just people like an ambulance driver would be. They don't actually have authority.

You are aware that dispatchers are not police officers right? For the most part they are just people like an ambulance driver would be. They dont actually have authority.
Yes,I know that. But dispatchers are not just some bums off the street. It was a reasonable order considering who and what Zimmerman was supposed to be, his purpose for being in that place, and what he might encounter if he left his vehicle. He, gun in hand, decided to play detective and vigilante.

Yes,I know that. But dispatchers are not just some bums off the street. It was a reasonable order considering who and what Zimmerman was supposed to be, his purpose for being in that place, and what he might encounter if he left his vehicle. He, gun in hand, decided to play detective and vigilante.

You sure know how to make things up. Are you sure you don't work for the media?

You say reasonable "order". They have no authority to "order" anything. All they can do is make suggestions. Also its not likely that he had "gun in hand" when he left the car. That would suggest that it was out and ready to fire. If that were the case then there wouldn't have been any fighting.

You say reasonable "order". They have no authority to "order" anything. All they can do is make suggestions. Also its not likely that he had "gun in hand" when he left the car. That would suggest that it was out and ready to fire. If that were the case then there wouldnt have been any fighting.
Okay, his gun was in his pocket. I'm sure it was handy. He ignored the dispatcher's "suggestion" and decided to play detective/policeman all on his own.

Is that better?

Okay, his gun was in his pocket. I'm sure it was handy. He ignored the dispatcher's "suggestion" and decided to play detective/policeman all on his own.

Is that better?

Works for me. It puts it in a light that is much easier to see. And more then likely closer to the truth then we will ever know.

Hello again, tom:
And, you know that HOW?? Oh, that's right. Zimmerman said so, and you believe it hook line and sinker...

But, in the real world, we don't know WHO punched and pummeled WHO?

excon

Just going by the evidence. I did not hear the prosecution dispute the basic facts . They hung their case on some inconsistencies in Zimmerman's interviews with Hannity . A very weak case that would NOT have gone to trial without outside political pressure.

Well this is a first a white man can defend himself against a black man, sort of changes the status quo, eh?

Yes,I know that. But dispatchers are not just some bums off the street. It was a reasonable order considering who and what Zimmerman was supposed to be, his purpose for being in that place, and what he might encounter if he left his vehicle. He, gun in hand, decided to play detective and vigilante.

The direct testimony in the case proved this bogus . Noffke explained to the jury that as a 911 dispatcher, he is unable to issue direct orders to callers due to liability issues. He stated that it sounded like Zimmerman was running so he advised him not to follow Martin; however, he did not issue a direct order.George Zimmerman trial: 911 dispatcher Sean Noffke takes the stand - Tampa Bay Crime | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-trial-911-dispatcher-sean-noffke-takes-the-stand)

In other words ;Zimmerman was ALREADY OUT OF HIS CAR ;and running to try to find Martin. When Noffke advised him that he should not do that Zimmerman cut off the pursuit ,turned around and attempted to return to his car. THAT'S THE FACTS presented at the trial .

And there was no testimony suggesting Zimmerman was carrying his gun in his hand . The evidence at the trial ,that was not disputed by the prosecution ,was that Zimmerman's gun was holstered until the second he pulled it and shot Martin.

Canada is like NY too, people often get charged just for pointing a gun or firing warning shots at intruders in their own home.
NY State law makes a higher burden on the victim to try to escape than Florida requires.
Self-Defense Law in New York State (http://selfdefenses.com/forcespray/SD-law.html)

If anything the facts show how incredibly wrong the narrative has been. Instead of letting the facts speak for themselves we got this concoction built to stir the racial pot and the race baiters aren't going to let it go.

Meanwhile, where is the national outrage?

13 month old baby shot dead in stroller (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/23/mother-of-baby-shot-dead-speaks-out-in-heartbreaking-interview-he-must-have-died-instantly/)

What a sad state of affairs in that gun culture.

What a sad state of affairs in that gun culture.

I don't live in a "gun culture". And I live in Texas. There aren't people walking around with six shooters on their hips having gun fights at high noon. Guns are not the problem, the problem stems from cultivating a society where innocent life is disposable, families are unnecessary, values are whatever you want them to be, discipline is evil, accountability is passé, everyone is entitled to everything and the government leads the way in that by taking from one to give to another and those trying to restore some common sense are standing in the way of 'progress'. For starters.

Did you read the outrageous comments to the story?


You kidding me right?? Holder is working as we speak to squash this travesty… 17 year old De'Marquise Elkins is black and Attorney General Holder doesn't want Black on white crime punished… Whites deserve it, right?? Cause who is the real victim here?? The child shot in the face? No… That was just a late term abortion… There is a democrat arguing that a child could be aborted up to two years old… So look to this brotha being set free with immunity in the coming days maybe a week…

De'Marquise Elkins shouldn't be breathing right now because a Concealed Carrying Citizen should have been there to prevent it… It would have bothered me in the least to put a 45 ACP in Mr De'Marquise Elkins Head…


Kenboo1

Race baiters stirring the pot over a tragedy?

the problem stems from cultivating a society where innocent life is disposable, families are unnecessary, values are whatever you want them to be, discipline is evil, accountability is passe, everyone is entitled to everything and the government leads the way in that by taking from one to give to another and those trying to restore some common sense are standing in the way of 'progress'. For starters.
To fix that, start with Hollywood and (cable) TV. Life imitates art.

To fix that, start with Hollywood and (cable) TV. Life imitates art.

I am all ears.

I am all ears.
I've suggested grassroots efforts in the past, but was told Republicans wouldn't be interested in such a thing.

Yes ,I'm not particularly interested in censorship . And that comes from someone who regularly calls the place Hollywierd .

To fix that, start with Hollywood and (cable) TV. Life imitates art.

Good luck with that, you might start with trying to convince the gangsta/hip hop music culture.

Hello again, Steve:

gangsta/hip hop music culture.Profile much?

Excon

The US rating system has long been set up to allow more violence than most any other country in the world.

Hello again, Steve:
Profile much?

excon

So you got the memo.

George Zimmerman and the new age of “profiling” « Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/14/george-zimmerman-and-the-new-age-of-profiling/)

What's funny is I'm profiled here every day and you never complain. In fact you join in. But anyway, Wondergirl pointed at Hollywood and I'm just expanding on that. Only a fool would disregard the violent, misogynistic crap being fed to our youth. (content warning).

2 Chainz (http://rapgenius.com/2-chainz-no-lie-lyrics)

" Authorities report widespread not rioting all over the country in the wake of the Zimmerman trial verdict, as many as zero people have been killed or injured in the lack of violence so far "

Wondergirl pointed at Hollywood
Wondergirl was especially thinking about the egocentric values that WHITE actors and directors et al. are subtly shoving onto our youth.

Wondergirl was especially thinking about the egocentric values that WHITE actors and directors et al. are subtly shoving onto our youth.

Or as the Red Hot Chile Peppers call it 'Californication'. Yes they are as complicit as anyone else in the celebrity worship society .

or as the Red Hot Chile Peppers call it 'Californication'. Yes they are as complicit as anyone else in the celebrity worship society .
Even prime-time sitcoms aren't sacred any longer. I'm so glad my kids are adults and I don't have to monitor their TV watching. Whatever happened to I Love Lucy and The Ed Sullivan Show?? Sex and bathroom humor are everywhere -- or am I just getting old? (Sorry -- I'm off topic but had to vent.)

Hello again, Steve;


Yes they are as complicit as anyone else in the celebrity worship societyWell, we got our Michael Moors and Bill Mahrs, and you got your Ted Nugents, and Chuck Norris's.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

Excon

Hello again, Steve;

Well, we got our Michael Moors and Bill Mahrs, and you got your Ted Nugents, and Chuck Norris's.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

The secret is to know what they are... people who are good at memorizing lines... sort of like our politicians (although some require teleprompters ) . Like I said... I'm not into censoring . I'll call the Michael Moron's of the world what they are... but I won't try to attempt to censor or boycott him... On the contrary ;I've seen his films and read his books .

Hello again, Steve;

Well, we got our Michael Moors and Bill Mahrs, and you got your Ted Nugents, and Chuck Norris's.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I'm still not tom, and you can have your morons.

Wondergirl was especially thinking about the egocentric values that WHITE actors and directors et al. are subtly shoving onto our youth.

Ah, so the black actors and directors are innocent.

Ah, so the black actors and directors are innocent.
I didn't say that. The preponderance of r-rated sex and bathroom humor has now become the norm (it's now pg-rated or tv14) and much of it is being encouraged by whites.

For instance, my beloved soap was canceled about two years ago. It's now available online on XFINITYy/hulu. The WHITE producers (now not limited by rules and regs) decided to lace the soap with lots of hot sex and four-letter words. The audience's enraged outcry was huge. The soap is back to its fairly modest self.

I didn't say that. The preponderance of r-rated sex and bathroom humor has now become the norm (it's now pg-rated or tv14) and much of it is being encouraged by whites.

For instance, my beloved soap was canceled about two years ago. It's now available online on XFINITYy/hulu. The WHITE producers (now not limited by rules and regs) decided to lace the soap with lots of hot sex and four-letter words. The audience's enraged outcry was huge. The soap is back to its fairly modest self.

So in other words ,they responded to customer desires. That doesn't sound like the WHITE producers are deciding anything except to satisfy the customer's demands .

so in other words ,they responded to customer desires. That doesn't sound like the WHITE producers are deciding anything except to satisfy the customer's demands .
But it does show that consumers (and many of these are 50 and older) do have some power. Unfortunately, most of the younger consumers are sheeple that happily swallow what they are being fed.

I didn't say that. The preponderance of r-rated sex and bathroom humor has now become the norm (it's now pg-rated or tv14) and much of it is being encouraged by whites.

For instance, my beloved soap was canceled about two years ago. It's now available online on XFINITYy/hulu. The WHITE producers (now not limited by rules and regs) decided to lace the soap with lots of hot sex and four-letter words. The audience's enraged outcry was huge. The soap is back to its fairly modest self.

Didn't you read the lyrics I linked to? Have you never seen self-absorbed black athletes making an a$$ of themselves while adoring youth hang on their every move and buy their $200 sneakers. Those young blacks aren't watching your beloved soap, and as tom said that other stuff is in demand. It wouldn't be that way or it would be less so were it not for the "anything goes" culture cultivated by the left.

Didn't you read the lyrics I linked to?
No, I didn't. And most people don't. It's a corner market. I'm speaking about what is the in-your-face part of American TV and movie culture.

I don't hear Carrie Underwood rattling my windows and shaking my car every day. What the kids (a most impressionable corner market) I'm referring to watch and listen to is what's relevant here. Have you watched MTV lately?

Have you watched MTV lately?
No, the basic TV stations and FOX. That's enough to rattle my chains.

This is rapidly going back to the hoodie issue. And yes ,like the sneakers and the pants that hang below the waist, the hoodie is part of the uniform and becomes part of the identity of the person wheter they intend it or not . The same was true in the 1950s with the black jacket and greaser look ,or the 1960s and tie dyed look identified you .