Who knows what truly happened, but this guy is being declared guilty before being presumed innocent.

If Obama had a son, would he look like Matthew?

Video: Matthew Owens Beaten by Black Mob Saying ?That's Justice for Trayvon" (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/video-matthew-owens-beaten-black-mob-saying-%E2%80%9Cthats-justice-trayvon)

Only the beginning.

The media,Al (aka Jesse Jackson) Sharpton will turn this into a powder-keg with a lit fuze.

The constitution has been and will be trampled to death.Innocent until proven guilty has long been dead.Its been Guilty until proven innocent for many years,its only a matter of time until this becomes LAW.

100 blacks beat white couple, media bury attack (http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/100-blacks-beat-white-couple-media-buries-attack/)

100 blacks beat white couple, media bury attack (http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/100-blacks-beat-white-couple-media-buries-attack/)

So a bunch of whites in the projects get beat up by 30, 100, over 9000, nobody knows black kids.

And a random facetwitterspacebook comment about Trayon.

Keep reeeeaaaaccchhhhiiiiinnnnngggggg.

So a bunch of whites in the projects get beat up by 30, 100, over 9000, nobody knows black kids.

And a random facetwitterspacebook comment about Trayon.

Keep reeeeaaaaccchhhhiiiiinnnnngggggg.

2 is a bunch now?? And one of them is a woman?
Move along white people...nothing to see here!

Seems to me that White on Black crimes stand out more than Black on White crimes and White on Black crimes are more likely to be classified as a Hate crime.

According to the FBI, 2010 hate crime offenders statistics: Of the 7,330 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 20.6 percent were black.

Is it that more crimes commited by whites against non whites actually are hate crimes or is it that they tend to be classified more as a hate crime (even if they are not)

I think the reason its becomes a hate crime is the "Why" they did it.

If a white guy beats up a black guy because they just wanted to beat somebody up...then its not a Hate Crime....but if a Black guy beats up a White Guy BECAUSE he is white...then that gets classified as a hate crime.

at least thats my take on it....if it makes any sense

Is it that more crimes commited by whites against non whites actually are hate crimes or is it that they tend to be classified more as a hate crime (even if they are not)

I think the reason its becomes a hate crime is the "Why" they did it.

If a white guy beats up a black guy because they just wanted to beat somebody up...then its not a Hate Crime....but if a Black guy beats up a White Guy BECAUSE he is white...then that gets classified as a hate crime.


The why may have something to do w/it (difficult to prove) but I think it also is what is said during the crime. If the word cracker or N..... is used, it prob. gets classified as a hate crime. I don't think Zimmerman was charged w/a hate crime b/c there is no proof he targeted Martin b/c of his color.

Matthew Owens beaten by a group of blacks was a hate crime... no other way to look at unless U believe in political correctness... where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

Plus U have had no media attention about the hate crime commited by a black American aganist a white person this past April in Chicago and is going to trial... once again... where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the two greatest black representatives to lead the black people to prosperity

At least there are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that stand for the black community. The spanish have their leaders and so on and so on.
Forget about asking where is Jackson and Sharpton for when crime is committed against white folks but where are the white local and national recognized leaders ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the reason its becomes a hate crime is the "Why" they did it.

If a white guy beats up a black guy because they just wanted to beat somebody up...then its not a Hate Crime....but if a Black guy beats up a White Guy BECAUSE he is white...then that gets classified as a hate crime.

at least thats my take on it....if it makes any sense

When Israelis bomb someone, its self defense, when someone bombs Israelis its terrorism.

Same thing, right?

From Websters...

Definition of HATE CRIME

: any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)

Where's all the black on hispanic violence?

"But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting."

did anyone read this?

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425)

Matthew Owens beaten by a group of blacks was a hate crime... no other way to look at unless U believe in political correctness... where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

Plus U have had no media attention about the hate crime commited by a black American aganist a white person this past April in Chicago and is going to trial... once again... where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the two greatest black representatives to lead the black people to prosperity

When a huge % of the hate crimes are committed against one race (that happens to be the minority) then maybe someone needs to stand up and point that out.

If it wasn't for those 2, would we be hearing about it or would an arrest have been made?

I personally haven't seen any indication that it was a hate crime though.

I personally think those 2 are a couple of Ass-Clowns myself. I think they do it more for their own gain than for the Righteous reasons they put out to the media.

I personally think those 2 are a couple of Ass-Clowns myself. I think they do it more for their own gain than for the Righteous reasons they put out to the media.

I agree with you. And, call me a pessimist but if we had “White” counterparts to these two who were advocates for the white community and jumped at every occasion they would be condemned and labeled racists.

Although if Al Sharpton were white he would resemble Ron Jeremy……….

"But a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting."

did anyone read this?

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425)

WOW ! interesting read. I think all Zims lawyers need to do is read that out loud and he would be acquited.

What kind of a cop says "Get a dog"?

I personally think those 2 are a couple of Ass-Clowns myself. I think they do it more for their own gain than for the Righteous reasons they put out to the media.

I agree. I don't read or listen to what they say. I don't know why others do. The more people listen and discuss what they say, they more media coverage they get.

Glad it is now in the courts and the evidence can be heard. I'm not sure how the article in any way reflects his guilt in the shooting. He will almost certainly get out of a 2nd degree murder charge, though.

I'm not sure how the article in any way reflects his guilt in the shooting. .

We know he is guilty of the shooting. What they need to do is make it a crime and that Zim was not acting in self defence. The burden is on the prosecution, not Zim. The prosecution case will rely on painting Zim as a hell bent vigilante, profiling Trayvon and ignoring police. Thats all they have.
The article paints a different picture. If the defense can get the older black lady in the article and the neighbor who Zim provided a back door lock to take the stand- they will speak to Zims character and the circumstances which may refute the picture the prosectuion is trying to paint. At the very least it will bring reasonable doubt and thats all they need.

We know he is guilty of the shooting. What they need to do is make it a crime and that Zim was not acting in self defence. The burden is on the prosecution, not Zim. The prosecution case will rely on painting Zim as a hell bent vigilante, profiling Trayvon and ignoring police. Thats all they have.
The article paints a different picture. If the defense can get the older black lady in the article and the neighbor who Zim provided a back door lock to take the stand- they will speak to Zims character and the circumstances which may refute the picture the prosectuion is trying to paint. At the very least it will bring reasonable doubt and thats all they need.

It still comes down to IF Zimmerman did follow him, when 911 told him not to and ended up in a confrontation. If he had said OK, turned around and walked away the kid is still alive today.

At least there are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that stand for the black community. The spanish have their leaders and so on and so on.
Forget about asking where is Jackson and Sharpton for when crime is committed against white folks but where are the white local and national recognized leaders ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


agreed!

What they need to do is make it a crime and that Zim was not acting in self defence. The burden is on the prosecution, not Zim.

They will use the head pic as self-defense evidence as well..

I'm still trying to figure out why the "Stand Your Ground" law pertains to the guy who initiated the chain of events by chasing down and confronting the guy walking down the street after being told not to....and not to the guy that was walking down the street. You would think in that situation Martin had the right to bash Zimmerman's head in the pavement and be covered under the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Just what I think....regardless of what either one of their backgrounds are.

Kind of like a car accident on the highway...who's at fault, the guy who is just driving down the road in his lane or the guy that alterred the traffic pattern and changed lanes.

if they both stayed in their lanes and their paths never crossed....there is no accident

WOW ! interesting read. I think all Zims lawyers need to do is read that out loud and he would be acquited.

He's a good guy! He just has had a couple restraining orders along with calls of domestic violence, no worries!

Also make sure to put this part of the 911 call on repeat:
"These #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s," he muttered in an aside, "they always get away."

Aquit!

He's a good guy! He just has had a couple restraining orders along with calls of domestic violence, no worries!

Also make sure to put this part of the 911 call on repeat:
"These #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s," he muttered in an aside, "they always get away."

Aquit!

The dead kid was no choir boy, either.

Not sure if that matters...

You weren't there, neither was I. It's no crime (though bad judgment) to refuse to obey a dispatcher. It's going to be a very tough case to prosecute.

The dead kid was no choir boy, either.

Not sure if that matters...

You weren't there, neither was I. It's no crime (though bad judgment) to refuse to obey a dispatcher. It's going to be a very tough case to prosecute.

The 911 call will pretty much paint him as a vigilante out to shoot someone.

He's a good guy! He just has had a couple restraining orders along with calls of domestic violence, no worries!

Also make sure to put this part of the 911 call on repeat:
"These #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s," he muttered in an aside, "they always get away."

Aquit!

Likiwd, try for a minute to use your brain, not your feelings -
Put black granny on the stand saying that black kids have been robbing the neighborhood and put neighbors on the stand saying that Zimmerman has been trying to help out. Put examples how recently robbers have escaped after Zimmerman called, etc. The jury will be sympathtic to Zim. I dont know if you've been on a jury but its all about getting the jury to like or dislike someone. That is who they will believe. Facts are sketchy, this case will be all about character.

Likiwd, try for a minute to use your brain, not your feelings -
Put black granny on the stand saying that black kids have been robbing the neighborhood and put neighbors on the stand saying that Zimmerman has been trying to help out. Put examples how recently robbers have escaped after Zimmerman called, etc. The jury will be sympathtic to Zim. I dont know if you've been on a jury but its all about getting the jury to like or dislike someone. That is who they will believe. Facts are sketchy, this case will be all about character.

This is about Zimmerman taking matters into his own hands and shooting someone, not any of your other bs.

Yes, I've been on two juries.
Its not about symapthy or any other bs you spew up, its about facts.

Fact is, he gunned the kid down. They won't be able to prove he was defending ANYTHING given he STALKED the kid.

Now, tell me, what is it like to have the media telling you how to think?

This is about Zimmerman taking matters into his own hands and shooting someone, not any of your other bs.

Yes, I've been on two juries.
Its not about symapthy or any other bs you spew up, its about facts.

Fact is, he gunned the kid down. They won't be able to prove he was defending ANYTHING given he STALKED the kid.

Now, tell me, what is it like to have the media telling you how to think?

Thats bs - every fact they put up to support that, the defense will have a counter. Stalked, thats an opinion, not a fact. It is a fact that when Zim witnessed a crime, the police got there too late, fact. It speaks to his rationale, its not illegal to follow a person who may be commititng a crime - then look at the history of the neighborhood. Who is your eyewitness? no one! It will come down to circumstance and character.
Sorry, not the media, my own opinion. Sorry it doesnt agree with yours. So you are saying that the prosecution will not try to paint zimmerman as a hot headed vigilante? There case will be all fact? BullShat.

I wonder if the crime has stopped/slowed down in this community after this incident. Not that it matters to the case above but wonder if this made the criminals robbing this place think twice.....

The 911 call will pretty much paint him as a vigilante out to shoot someone.

really?
here is the full transcript. Not media talking points. please tell me which parts paint him as a vigilante? He sounds controlled and polite to the 911 operator. he tells them exactly where he is and exactly where the police should meet him. Would a murderer do that? He is noticably shaken when he provides his address because he realizes that that potential thief (in his state of mind) might over hear. The jury will hear fear in this, not aggression.
He twice make derogratory remarks about thieves - not trayvon, thieves. 99.99% of people believe thieves are punks, a-holes, etc. The jury will relate.
The 911 dispatcher says- We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Sounds like the dispatcher is on Zimmermans side! On the wire! He is approving Zimmermans actions!
And for the grand finale - the 911 operator says - "we dont need you to do that" when Zim is following. That wasnt an order, that was a comment. They didnt tell him not to follow.
This is what you base your case on? Please read the transcript and tell me how this hangs zimmerman?

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin | Phoebe's Detention Room (http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/)

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin | Phoebe's Detention Room (http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/)

You guys are over thinking this. His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal. In that moment he went from a being a community watcher to vigilante. So far I've not seen any evidence that contradicts this.

I'll be astonished if he doesn't get a manslaughter conviction.

-spence

really?
here is the full transcript. Not media talking points. please tell me which parts paint him as a vigilante? He sounds controlled and polite to the 911 operator. he tells them exactly where he is and exactly where the police should meet him. Would a murderer do that? He is noticably shaken when he provides his address because he realizes that that potential thief (in his state of mind) might over hear. The jury will hear fear in this, not aggression.
He twice make derogratory remarks about thieves - not trayvon, thieves. 99.99% of people believe thieves are punks, a-holes, etc. The jury will relate.
The 911 dispatcher says- We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Sounds like the dispatcher is on Zimmermans side! On the wire! He is approving Zimmermans actions!
And for the grand finale - the 911 operator says - "we dont need you to do that" when Zim is following. That wasnt an order, that was a comment. They didnt tell him not to follow.
This is what you base your case on? Please read the transcript and tell me how this hangs zimmerman?

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin | Phoebe's Detention Room (http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/)

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin | Phoebe's Detention Room (http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/)

Facts:
He stalked the kid. (Proven by the fact HE TELLS THE DISPATCHER HE'S FOLLOWING TRAYVON)
He got into a confrontation with the kid. (Proven by the injuries)
He shot the kid. (The hole in the kid)

Horse dookie:
Everything you said.

The 911 dispatcher says- We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Sounds like the dispatcher is on Zimmermans side! On the wire! He is approving Zimmermans actions!
]

I think "On the Wire" means that they have dispatched it to units in the area to check out....I don't think its approving Zimmerman's actions.

I got a feeling this trial is going to be more about the Stand your Ground law than about Zimmerman's innocence or guilt

Facts:
He stalked the kid. (Proven by the fact HE TELLS THE DISPATCHER HE'S FOLLOWING TRAYVON)
He got into a confrontation with the kid. (Proven by the injuries)
He shot the kid. (The hole in the kid)

Horse dookie:
Everything you said.

I agree with your facts. But they don't prove that Zimmerman committed a crime, not by a long shot. Those facts that you listed, in no way prove that Martin didn't initiate the situation that made it reasonable for Zimmerman to assume he was in grave danger.

I'm not saying I like what Zimmerman did. I'm saying that the facts you listed don't even come close to eliminating reasonable doubt.

Facts:
He stalked the kid. (Proven by the fact HE TELLS THE DISPATCHER HE'S FOLLOWING TRAYVON) - yup, he is following a suspicious person in an area with break ins- thats stewardship and good citizenship. Protecting his neighbors
He got into a confrontation with the kid. (Proven by the injuries) - who started it? defense will say TrayvonHe shot the kid. (The hole in the kid) - self defence

Horse dookie:
Everything you said.

Gee, that was a diffucult defense to your iron clad case

You guys are over thinking this. His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal. In that moment he went from a being a community watcher to vigilante. So far I've not seen any evidence that contradicts this.

I'll be astonished if he doesn't get a manslaughter conviction.

-spence

"His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal."

There's no law that says you can't actively engage someone you think is committing a crime. There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

"His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal."

There's no law that says you can't actively engage someone you think is committing a crime. There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

exactly.

if there are break ins in your neighborhood and you see someone sneaking around none of you would follow? You'd just call the police?
How about if some funny looking guy was walking around a school yard, eyeing little girls? You'd call the police and go home? Im a wimp but I would keep my eye on them until the police arrive.
Based on 911 call, thats exactly what zim was doing. no crime there at all. you can spin it as stalking but the defense will spin it as civic duty.

here you go Likwid from a former prosecutor and law professor - I am sure its horse dookie to you but what will it mean to the jury?

To paraphrase President Obama, if I had a son who had been flat on the ground in a vicious fight, the back of his head would look like that of accused murderer George Zimmerman.

Thanks to a photograph broadcast by ABC News showing Zimmerman’s bloody head wounds, those trying to use Trayvon Martin’s death to challenge “stand your ground” self-defense laws had better start exploiting some other tragedy. For the picture demonstrates that Zimmerman was unable to retreat, since he was pinned to the ground taking a beating when he shot Martin. And note that one of the depicted wounds is long and straight, consistent with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was pounding his head against an edged curbstone at the time of the fatal shot.

We don’t have all the facts, but there are things we do know.

For instance, the police radio tape proves that Zimmerman was describing his actions to the police as he allegedly stalked his victim. Doesn’t that undercut the murder charges? What kind of criminal calls 911 to tell the police he is hunting down his intended prey?

On the tape, Zimmerman not only advises he is following Martin, but he also asks for confirmation that a police officer is being dispatched to investigate. The dispatcher replies that Zimmerman doesn’t need to follow Martin, to which Zimmerman promptly responds “OK” and agrees, instead, to rendezvous with the en-route police officer.

Again, what kind of murderer, preparing for the kill, invites the police to interrupt his scheme? Moreover, doesn’t this conversation support Zimmerman’s claim that he had ceased his pursuit prior to the confrontation with Martin?

We also know that, after shooting Martin, Zimmerman waited for the police to arrive and cooperated fully with their investigation, even as emergency medical personnel treated his head wounds. Wouldn’t someone who had just committed a heinous hate crime potentially punishable by death or life imprisonment have fled the scene or, at least, requested legal counsel and refused to answer questions?

Zimmerman and Martin fought on the ground, and the fight ended when Zimmerman pulled the trigger. But at Zimmerman’s bail hearing, a prosecution detective, who had sworn out the arrest warrant, testified that he couldn’t say who had started the fight.

If this case goes to trial, the prosecution will need a better answer than that if it hopes to prove Zimmerman was the aggressor. And shouldn’t that key issue have been resolved before bringing murder charges against an obviously injured person claiming that he acted in self-defense?

While much evidence remains to be disclosed, what we have learned so far raises serious questions about the strength, rationale, and integrity of the prosecution’s case. These questions are all the more troubling given the tsunami of manufactured racist hysteria that clearly influenced the decision to arrest “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman.

Stay tuned.

yawn,

Absent something new in Corey's file, one of America's best-known lawyers feels the case against Zimmerman is doomed. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz believes that the murder charges will be thrown out.
Last week, media outlets filed motions to unseal the records concerning the arrest of George Zimmerman in connection with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Sooner than later, the public will see what evidence special prosecutor Angela Corey has that warranted the filing of second-degree murder charges.

Absent something new in Corey's file, one of America's best-known lawyers feels the case against Zimmerman is doomed. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz believes that the murder charges will be thrown out.

In a recent interview with me, Dershowitz acknowledged the low evidentiary bar necessary at this juncture but still opined that Corey has not met it.

"Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin," Dershowitz said. "This is so thin that it won't make it past the judge on a second-degree murder charge. There is simply nothing in there that would justify second-degree murder. The elements of the crime aren't established ...

"There is nothing in there, of course, either about the stains on the back of Zimmerman's shirt, the blood on the back of his head, the bloody nose, all of that. It's not only thin, it's irresponsible. I think that what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech ... for re-election when she gave her presentation, and overcharged, way overcharged. ...

"If the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable-cause affidavit, this case will result in an acquittal."

Nothing offered by the prosecution at last week's bond hearing contradicts what Dershowitz told me. In fact, when investigator Dale Gilbreath, who signed the affidavit, was asked what proof he had that Zimmerman was the instigator, he offered absolutely no evidence.

Corey's two-page "Affidavit of Probable Cause -- Second Degree Murder" says Martin "was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime."

The affidavit also says that in his recorded call to police, Zimmerman, "while talking about Martin ... stated 'these a-- , they always get away.'"

And, the affidavit says, when the dispatcher instructed Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin, who was trying to return to his home."

What the affidavit does not reveal is what, specifically, began the physical confrontation. Here is the critical paragraph:

"Zimmerman confronted Martin, and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period, witnesses heard numerous calls for help, and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls, identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's."

Confronted and a struggle ensued? Ensued how? Provoked by whom? And where Zimmerman presumably has told Sanford police that Martin was the initiator, what evidence does the prosecution have to refute him -- with Martin himself silenced? The affidavit does not say.

Commenting on the absence of this information, Dershowitz told me: "But it's worse than that. It's irresponsible and unethical, not including the material that favors the defendant, unless it's not true. But if it's true, as we now have learned from other information, that the grass stains are in back of Zimmerman's shirt, that there were bruises on his head, you must put that in an affidavit. The affidavit has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Dershowitz acknowledges that "probable cause is a very minimal standard. It just means if everything you say turns out to be true, have the elements of the crime been satisfied? ... This affidavit doesn't even make it to probable cause. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything."

Conventional wisdom holds that a critical pretrial moment will come when the defense argues a motion to dismiss the case on the "stand-your-ground" law (which will render Zimmerman immune from prosecution if by a preponderance of evidence he can show that he "reasonably believed" using deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm).

But if Dershowitz is right, the case won't make it that far. The affidavit suggests that Zimmerman was the provocateur with its references to his profiling, slurs and refusal to follow law enforcement advice ("we don't need you to do that"). But even if Zimmerman was the initiator, he will still maintain some right of self-defense.

"So, there is nothing in this affidavit -- and I've read it quite carefully -- that suggests the crime. It suggests the possibility of a crime, but a good judge will throw this out," according to Dershowitz.

When Sanford police initially investigated the case, they referred to it as a potential case of "manslaughter," but then declined to prosecute, at which point Gov. Rick Scott appointed Corey to investigate.

Manslaughter means the outcome was unintended. Murder, with which Corey charged Zimmerman, means he meant to kill Martin and acted with a "depraved mind." Unless the prosecution has an eyewitness to support such a claim, it is difficult to see how it will be sustained. We should soon find out.
-------

There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

exactly.


Not Really....a citizen's Arrest can only be made IF you actually Witness a crime being Committed....not think he might be going to commit a crime.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

I don't think a citizen's arrest can be used in this case... I think it will all boil down to who is deemed the Antagonist

Really? An OpEd is your evidence?

:rotf2:

Really? An OpEd is your evidence?

:rotf2:

not evidence, opinion. from people more educated and inexpericeced than you and Spence.
Opinion is all that is needed for reasonable doubt.

not evidence, opinion. from people more educated and inexpericeced than you and Spence.
Opinion is all that is needed for reasonable doubt.

Ahhh yes, once again, the media doing the thinking for you.


This won't be a 'stand your ground' case due to the wording:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using
the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
himself or herself or another against the such other’s imminent use of unlawful
force. However, a the person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat only if:

(a) 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;

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

Ahhh yes, once again, the media doing the thinking for you.


This won't be a 'stand your ground' case due to the wording:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using
the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
himself or herself or another against the such other’s imminent use of unlawful
force. However, a the person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat only if:

(a) 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;

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

:smash:
Ignorance is bliss

Not Really....a citizen's Arrest can only be made IF you actually Witness a crime being Committed....not think he might be going to commit a crime.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

I don't think a citizen's arrest can be used in this case... I think it will all boil down to who is deemed the Antagonist

I wasn't saying a citizen's arrest was warranted in this case. I was saying that Zimmerman's act of following this kid (or stalking him, whatever you want to call it) was not, itself, a crime. Spence said Zimmerman's "job" was to wait for police, and that's absolutely, 100% false. If a citizen sees something suspicious, he is not required to sit and wait. There is no law saying he cannot actively engage. There are limits, or course.

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

What do you base that on?

I'm not saying I think Zimmerman isn't builty, because I don't know many facts. But your statement is insane. If someone is bashing my head into the concrete, and I have a gun, too bad for them.

I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. But I can point you to hundreds of cases where "kids beat the crap" out of their victims and either killed them or did grave harm.

You're saying that getting the crap beat out of you by a kid (which is irrelevent) isn't a justifiable use of deadly force. I bet there isn't a criminal lawyer in the country who would agree with you.

This might have been a good read for him.....

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.

I don't think he is guilty of Racial Profiling or Murder...I think he is more guilty of Stupidity and Over-Zealousness.

But all-in-all we'll see what the Court thinks...he doesn't have to sell it to me....he has to sell it to the jury

I wasn't saying a citizen's arrest was warranted in this case. I was saying that Zimmerman's act of following this kid (or stalking him, whatever you want to call it) was not, itself, a crime. Spence said Zimmerman's "job" was to wait for police, and that's absolutely, 100% false. If a citizen sees something suspicious, he is not required to sit and wait. There is no law saying he cannot actively engage. There are limits, or course.

The police gave Zimmerman -- as a community watch officer -- strict instructions as to what he could or could not do. He was not supposed to carry a weapon, he was not supposed to engage a suspect. He violated both of these instructions.

As TDF said, witnessing a "crime" may be different. But acting on suspicion alone, especially when you've been instructed not to is clearly a conflict the jury will be forced to consider.

-spence

Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.[/B]

What about Dog? Dog, the big bad dog, the bounty hunter.........

:uhuh:

This might have been a good read for him.....

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.

I don't think he is guilty of Racial Profiling or Murder...I think he is more guilty of Stupidity and Over-Zealousness.

But all-in-all we'll see what the Court thinks...he doesn't have to sell it to me....he has to sell it to the jury

Transcript:
911 Dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]
Zimmerman:
George. He ran.
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, what’s your last name?
Zimmerman:
Zimmerman.
911 dispatcher:
What’s the phone number you’re calling from?
Zimmerman:

407-435-2400

911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman:

Yeah.
911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

Right there is the case - Zimmerman directs the police to his truck where based on the discussion he will be meeting them! He is not stalking Treyvon, he is going to his truck
Please show me where there is ANY evidence Zimmerman pursued Trayvon when the dispatcher ADVISED him not to? He said OK, He AGREES to meet the police.
Case closed guys, you have all voiced your opinions but have provided NO FACTS to support. Its tiring.

if Trayvon is running for the gate and Zimmerman didn't go after him then how did they end up in a scuffle.

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

Right there is the case - Zimmerman directs the police to his truck where based on the discussion he will be meeting them! He is not stalking Treyvon, he is going to his truck
Please show me where there is ANY evidence Zimmerman pursued Trayvon when the dispatcher ADVISED him not to? He said OK, He AGREES to meet the police.
Case closed guys, you have all voiced your opinions but have provided NO FACTS to support. Its tiring.
If this was true Zimmerman would have met the police and Martin would have been with his father...alive.

-spence

uhh, unless Trayvon circled back and jumped him - which 100% backs up Zimmermans story.

You're both assuming he followed him with no evidence. Please post evidence not speculation.

uhh, unless Trayvon circled back and jumped him - which 100% backs up Zimmermans story.
Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time...

Or, Martin was being followed and felt threatened. If he was, and did attack Zimmerman it's still going to be manslaughter because Martin had every legal right to be doing what he was.

You're both assuming he followed him with no evidence. Please post evidence not speculation.

The evidence needs to show that Martin was committing a crime, not that he wasn't. You're asking for the prosecution to prove a negative here.

-spence

uhh, unless Trayvon circled back and jumped him - which 100% backs up Zimmermans story.

You're both assuming he followed him with no evidence. Please post evidence not speculation.

Its Speculation both ways...its Zimmermans word...thats all..Where's the Evidence that Martin Doubled back and jumped Trayvon...because Zimmerman said so :huh:

What I posted about that 911 call backs up my speculation just as much as what you posted about the same call backs up your speculation.

No Difference...which is pretty much why there will probably be an acquittal

Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time...

Or, Martin was being followed and felt threatened. If he was, and did attack Zimmerman it's still going to be manslaughter because Martin had every legal right to be doing what he was.



The evidence needs to show that Martin was committing a crime, not that he wasn't. You're asking for the prosecution to prove a negative here.

-spence

"Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time..."

Earth to Spence...you weren't there.

Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying in the first day or two after the Duke lacrosse rape case eploded onto the scene.

You liberals crack me up. You won't call the Ft Hood shooter an Islamic terrorist despite overwhelming evidence. But you have no problem rushing to judgment here.

As always, if it serves the liberal agenda, it must be true. It it spits in the face of the liberal agenda, it must be false.

By the way, I think Zimmerman is probably guilty of something here. But from where I sit, there's all kinds of ways to raise reasonable doubt. Zimmerman says he was attacked, the back of his head is covered in blood, that's a whole lot of reasonable doubt right there.

"'d love to know what you were saying in the first day or two after the Duke lacrosse rape case exploded onto the scene"

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/scuppers/39948-imus-thing-3.html

About 3/4 of the way down the page, mixed in w. a friendly insult to Nebe

"Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time..."

Earth to Spence...you weren't there.

Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying in the first day or two after the Duke lacrosse rape case eploded onto the scene.

You liberals crack me up. You won't call the Ft Hood shooter an Islamic terrorist despite overwhelming evidence. But you have no problem rushing to judgment here.

As always, if it serves the liberal agenda, it must be true. It it spits in the face of the liberal agenda, it must be false.

By the way, I think Zimmerman is probably guilty of something here. But from where I sit, there's all kinds of ways to raise reasonable doubt. Zimmerman says he was attacked, the back of his head is covered in blood, that's a whole lot of reasonable doubt right there.

And you were milking every last blame/attack on liberals you could muster when the kid who lost his crap lit up the afghanis.

Stay classy Jim! Stay classy!

:biglaugh:

Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying in the first day or two after the Duke lacrosse rapecase eploded onto the scene. I guess b/c he's a liberal and all liberals think alike?

You liberals crack me up. [/COLOR]stereotyping?:rotf2:[/COLOR]As always, if it serves the liberal agenda, it must be true. It it spits in the face of the liberal agenda, it must be false.As always, if it serves the cons. agenda, it must be true. It it spits in the face of the cons.l agenda, it must be false. yadda yadda yadda



All your anger is gonna kill you.

And you were milking every last blame/attack on liberals you could muster when the kid who lost his crap lit up the afghanis.

Stay classy Jim! Stay classy!

I didn't say I was classy. I'm saying I'm correct. And when liberals stop talking about facts or relevent opinions and hurl insults instead, that's when I know I've won.

:biglaugh:

All your anger is gonna kill you.

Wrong as usual. I'm not brainwashed by either side. I have said before, I think liberals have great arguments when it comes to gun control and gay marriage. I voted for Bill Clinton and thought he was a pretty good president.

I can, and do, think for myself.

And unlike most liberals, I learn from my mistakes. Liberals still have egg on their faces from the Duke lacrosse debacle, and yet here they are, assuming this guy is guilty because the race issue (made up in this case, but don't let that stop you) has you all foaming at the mouth like a bunch of Hitler Youth shouting "Sieg Heil!".

No Difference...which is pretty much why there will probably be an acquittal

exactly the point I've been trying to make!

assuming this guy is guilty because the race issue (made up in this case, but don't let that stop you) has you all foaming at the mouth like a bunch of Hitler Youth shouting "Sieg Heil!".

Putting words in our mouth again, huh... All liberals... huh?

I assume he is guilty of something because based on my interpretations Zimmerman put himself in a situation that culminated in him shooting an unarmed kid who Zimmerman thought was suspicious (But was not committing a crime). My take on this would be exactly the same if Zimmerman was white, black, Hispanic, Asian, liberal, republican, and if Trayvon was white, black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever! Ultimately it will be UP TO A JURY OF HIS PEERS to decide if he committed a crime or not. Either way, this is a tragedy for both sides.

I posted a link to a thread back to the Duke case where I (as a liberal) specifically decried what Jackson/Sharpton etc.. were doing in that case with race and guilt.

But then again, I'm a liberal, so you KNOW what we all think

Putting words in our mouth again, huh... All liberals... huh?

I assume he is guilty of something because based on my interpretations Zimmerman put himself in a situation that culminated in him shooting an unarmed kid who Zimmerman thought was suspicious (But was not committing a crime). My take on this would be exactly the same if Zimmerman was white, black, Hispanic, Asian, liberal, republican, and if Trayvon was white, black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever! Ultimately it will be UP TO A JURY OF HIS PEERS to decide if he committed a crime or not. Either way, this is a tragedy for both sides.

I posted a link to a thread back to the Duke case where I (as a liberal) specifically decried what Jackson/Sharpton etc.. were doing in that case with race and guilt.

But then again, I'm a liberal, so you KNOW what we all think

My position is that liberals, as a group, convicted the Duke lacrosse players before many facts were in. Today, most liberals, as a group, are doing the same thing here. That's my position, and I stand by it. If you are getting worked up because I didn't qualify my statement with "most liberals", or "nearly all liberals", I'm sorry. If I say "liberals think this", or "liberals think that", I don't mean every single liberal with literally zero exceptions. I'm talking about the group.

I think you knew what I meant, but hopefully that clears it up.

My position is that liberals, as a group, convicted the Duke lacrosse players before many facts were in. Today, most liberals, as a group, are doing the same thing here. That's my position, and I stand by it. If you are getting worked up because I didn't qualify my statement with "most liberals", or "nearly all liberals", I'm sorry. If I say "liberals think this", or "liberals think that", I don't mean every single liberal with literally zero exceptions. I'm talking about the group.

I think you knew what I meant, but hopefully that clears it up.

Clarification not needed.

I think you equate what you see in the media with how 'Liberals' think... just like there is a spectrum of conservatives who don't all just watch Fox News with their heads nodding like a bobble head doll, there is a large % of liberals who can (and maybe do) watch MSNBC without accepting it all as gospel truth.

Just keep that in mind please.

Clarification not needed.

I think you equate what you see in the media with how 'Liberals' think... just like there is a spectrum of conservatives who don't all just watch Fox News with their heads nodding like a bobble head doll, there is a large % of liberals who can (and maybe do) watch MSNBC without accepting it all as gospel truth.

Just keep that in mind please.

"I think you equate what you see in the media with how 'Liberals' think... '

I base my opinion of liberals' beliefs on what I see and hear everywhere. What else can I do? I don't let Sean Hannity tell me what to think, I'm not that simple-minded.

"there is a large % of liberals who can (and maybe do) watch MSNBC without accepting it all as gospel truth. "

That may be true, but it's not true just because you say it. And I don't see a lot of that. What I see is a guy like Juan Williams, a liberal, who says one conservative thing, and he gets fired from Public Radio (of all places).

I see almost perfect monolithic thinking on the left. Very, VERY little diversity of opinions. I don't say that because some right-wing nut tells me to say it. I say it because that's my observation, and I pay more attention to this stuff than most folks.

Wrong as usual. I'm not brainwashed by either side. I have said before, I think liberals have great arguments when it comes to gun control and gay marriage. I voted for Bill Clinton and thought he was a pretty good president.

I can, and do, think for myself.

And unlike most liberals, I learn from my mistakes. Liberals still have egg on their faces from the Duke lacrosse debacle, and yet here they are, assuming this guy is guilty because the race issue (made up in this case, but don't let that stop you) has you all foaming at the mouth like a bunch of Hitler Youth shouting "Sieg Heil!".

Seems like a lot of anger there. You say you don't sterotype but 50% of your posts have either "all" or "most" liberals (or some variation) and yet you say you think for yourself. Your actions don't match your perception of yourself.

exactly the point I've been trying to make!

Then why are we arguing....:hihi:

Then why are we arguing....:hihi:

Didnt think we were, I was arguing with Jakwad, er, I mean Likwid who apparently can only see things one way. The 911 call can easily be spun in Zimmermans favor, not many murders call the police and provide their name, address, phone number and location minutes before committing a crime. Not many murders stay at the crime scene and cooperate fully with the police. I believe there is a ton of evidence that will be viewed in a way that will acquit Zim. I cant see how spence and lw cant see this. Im not saying right or wrong but come on, I dont see how the prosecution has a case they can prove.

"I see almost perfect monolithic thinking on the left. Very, VERY little diversity of opinions. I don't say that because some right-wing nut tells me to say it. I say it because that's my observation, and I pay more attention to this stuff than most folks.

Perhaps you should go back and look at the posts in this thread and look at the opinions of the people who tend to come at points from the left and from the right? Do that and see which side seems to have the "monolithic" thinking.

Perhaps you should go back and look at the posts in this thread and look at the opinions of the people who tend to come at points from the left and from the right? Do that and see which side seems to have the "monolithic" thinking.

Perhaps you should look up the word "monolithic", because I see nemerous examples of that stereotypical liberal thinking here.

Because the dead kid was black, and only because he is black, most liberals have convicted this guy.

One of the liberals here even managed to compare Israel with terrorists in this thread, somehow. That's pure, liberal, monolithic thinking.

Seems like a lot of anger there. You say you don't sterotype but 50% of your posts have either "all" or "most" liberals (or some variation) and yet you say you think for yourself. Your actions don't match your perception of yourself.

I never said I don't stereotype, can you avoid making stuff up please?

Not all stereotypes are invalid.

I'm not angry, either. I'm just correct in this case. Let the justice system play out, and when this guy gets acquitted, hunker down and prepare for the typical liberal reaction - namely anarchist rioting. and feral mayhem.

When OJ got acquitted, I don't recall seeing conservatives burning cars and throwing bricks through windows. Why is that?

Didnt think we were, I was arguing with Jakwad, er, I mean Likwid who apparently can only see things one way. The 911 call can easily be spun in Zimmermans favor, not many murders call the police and provide their name, address, phone number and location minutes before committing a crime. Not many murders stay at the crime scene and cooperate fully with the police. I believe there is a ton of evidence that will be viewed in a way that will acquit Zim. I cant see how spence and lw cant see this. Im not saying right or wrong but come on, I dont see how the prosecution has a case they can prove.
I've never asserted that Zimmerman is a murderer or even a racist. I have asserted I think he's going to be convicted of manslaughter. A good upstanding citizen can royally #^&#^&#^&#^& up and kill someone in an illegal manner.

There's a reason the system doesn't like vigilante justice, it blurs the line and heads straight down a slippery slope.

-spence

That may be true, but it's not true just because you say it. And I don't see a lot of that. What I see is a guy like Juan Williams, a liberal, who says one conservative thing, and he gets fired from Public Radio (of all places).
Stating you're afraid of Muslims is a "conservative" thing to say?

Wow, just wow.

-spence

Perhaps you should look up the word "monolithic", because I see nemerous examples of that stereotypical liberal thinking here.

Because the dead kid was black, and only because he is black, most liberals have convicted this guy.

One of the liberals here even managed to compare Israel with terrorists in this thread, somehow. That's pure, liberal, monolithic thinking.

Really, did you go back and do what I suggested you do or instead just respond back w/your typical anger and insults? I'll bet you didn't review the thread.

Because the dead kid was black, and only because he is black, most liberals have convicted this guy.


And there you have it folks, the race card has been dealt.

I've never asserted that Zimmerman is a murderer or even a racist. I have asserted I think he's going to be convicted of manslaughter. A good upstanding citizen can royally #^&#^&#^&#^& up and kill someone in an illegal manner.

There's a reason the system doesn't like vigilante justice, it blurs the line and heads straight down a slippery slope.

-spence

spence, this is tiring. we usually disagree but this time you're really surprising me. A vigilante MEANS something. They are people who take the law into their own hands, they go out on their own to deliver justice on someone, right?
Zimmerman CALLED THE COPS ! HE TOLD THE COPS WHERE HE WAS!
By definition - vigilantes dont call the police! the incident didnt occur hours after the call, it was minutes after. He suddenly had some change of heart?
He never in the 911 call said "I'm gonna get this guy" or "I'm going kill this bastard"
If you listen to teh call, Zimmerman sounds SCARED, not aggressive
That didnt happen, he called the police and gave his name, phone and address.
How do you think the altercation happened. Trayvon said hey why are your following me? Zimmerman then pulled out his gun? Really? If so, you're tellng me Trayvon has balls to then attack Zimmerman ( we know that happened to to Zims wounds) ??? You think he attacked after the gun was pulled? If not, then it appears likely Trayvon acted first.
Think about it.

Then why didn't Zimmerman stay in his truck?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stating you're afraid of Muslims is a "conservative" thing to say?

Wow, just wow.

-spence

Liberals (sorry, most liberals) deny a connection between Islamic terrorists and Islam. Most conservatives concede the connection.

Most liberals deny the connection between the vast majority of those who want to blow us up, and Islam, which motivates them. Obama, a leader of liberalism, wants a "negotiated peace" with the Taliban, yet liberals say that conservatives are declaring war on women? So women have nothing to fear from the Taliban, but they need to be worried about Paul Ryan?

Now THAT is worthy "wow...just wow."

Conservatives admit mathematical realities. Liberals happily ignore mathematical realities when it serves their kooky agenda.

And there you have it folks, the race card has been dealt.

Please. The race card was dealt when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson started screaming that the kid was lynched because he was black. There are documented cases of white people being beaten by blacks, because of their race, in retaliation for this case. But you're saying I just dealt the race card, just now?

Please. Talk sense. You're making this too easy for me.

Likwid, you're going to deny that the race of the victim has many liberals rushing to judgment?

Likwid, I didn't play the race card here. I correctly pointed out that your side played the race card here, with zero evidence that race had anything to do with it (as usual, for your side).

. I have asserted I think he's going to be convicted of manslaughter.
-spence

No, no. You said it was "his job" to stay in the car. That's what you said, and it's B.S.

I also suspect he's probably going to be convicted of a lesser charge, mostly to keep the anarchists on your side of the aisle from burning the state of Florida to the ground, which they have a tendency to do when things don't go their way. Especially when your leaders like Al Sharpton get all the morons good and worked up over a bunch of lies.

Hey guys, stripers are in!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didnt think we were, I was arguing with Jakwad, er, I mean Likwid who apparently can only see things one way. The 911 call can easily be spun in Zimmermans favor, not many murders call the police and provide their name, address, phone number and location minutes before committing a crime. Not many murders stay at the crime scene and cooperate fully with the police. I believe there is a ton of evidence that will be viewed in a way that will acquit Zim. I cant see how spence and lw cant see this. Im not saying right or wrong but come on, I dont see how the prosecution has a case they can prove.

Oh how cute! A personal attack! Let me make a funny like you RIJimmy; steers and queers. Hurry up, they're calling you.

And lets look at some facts.
"They always get away" his words
"Damn coons" his words
Seems he thought he was doing the 'right' thing. And I bet he thought he was in the right for shooting the kid.

Jimmy, lets get down to brass tacks here, are you afraid of black people?

Jimmy, lets get down to brass tacks here, are you afraid of black people?
Well, it would be the conservative way :jester:

-spence

Well, it would be the conservative way :jester:

-spence

It would? Really?

Read some history, Spence. Conservatives led the charge to abolish slavery. Conservatives led the charge to end segregation. The last time the Civil Rights Act was defeated in the US Senate, it was fillibustered by 2 senators from the Democratic party - Robert Byrd (who the Dems made president of the Senate, making him 3rd in line for succession to the office of President) and Al Gore, Senior.

My party wants to give blacks the tools they need to succeed. Your party wants to cripple them for life, by patting them on the head, saying "there, there", and giving them a welfare check. That's worked out just great for the last 30 years, hasn't it?

Thanks to your party's welfare programs which pay teenagers to have kids out of wedlock, 70% of black childred are born out of wedlock. 70%. Not a great cultural leap forwrd in my book.

Spence, when you get past the bullsh*t rhetoric and look at the truth, the air is pretty clean on my side when it comes to race.

Your party, not mine, put a former Klansman to be 3rd in line for the office of the President, until his death in 2010. And Robert Byrd used the "n" word in a TV interview the year he died, so it's not like he turned over a new leaf.

Have fun weaseling your way out of that little fact.

Well, it would be the conservative way :jester:

-spence

And no, racism is not the conservative way? But it is most certainly the liberal way to accuse conservatives of racism (which is what Likwid did), once you realize you've been pummeled in a debate.

Originally Posted by JohnR

"OK, this thread has run its course. If anything of substance comes along, maybe we can have a new thread. But this has been a circular argument.

I wish peace to Trayvon's family and hope they can find some closure. I hope the systems does what is is supposed to do, and make the appropriate call. John R"

anytime now John:)

this is ugly and kinda reflects what were seeing across the nation unfortunately....I fear it's only going to get worse....

No, no. You said it was "his job" to stay in the car. That's what you said, and it's B.S.
No, it's clearly spelled out in the community watch rules that Zimmerman was supposed to be following. As the chief of the neighborhood watch you'd think he'd know them better than anyone.

10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

I haven't seen anything that indicates Zimmerman didn't cross this line completely on his own judgement.
I also suspect he's probably going to be convicted of a lesser charge, mostly to keep the anarchists on your side of the aisle from burning the state of Florida to the ground, which they have a tendency to do when things don't go their way. Especially when your leaders like Al Sharpton get all the morons good and worked up over a bunch of lies.
Al Sharpton doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It's a deke by some to distract from the substance of this issue.

I think it's going to boil down to two simple things, Martin had every right to be where he was, and Zimmerman crossed the line in his duty in the neighborhood watch by moving beyond simply reporting what he saw as suspicious behavior and by carrying a firearm when he wasn't supposed to be.

If Martin was indeed profiled -- the reporting is that there have been many thefts by young black men recently -- then the issue of Zimmerman crossing the vigilante line is even more important.

Most of the support for Zimmerman appears to be coming from the gun lobby...who's position is just as absurd as Al Sharpton.

-spence

No, it's clearly spelled out in the community watch rules that Zimmerman was supposed to be following. As the chief of the neighborhood watch you'd think he'd know them better than anyone.



I haven't seen anything that indicates Zimmerman didn't cross this line completely on his own judgement.

Al Sharpton doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It's a deke by some to distract from the substance of this issue.

I think it's going to boil down to two simple things, Martin had every right to be where he was, and Zimmerman crossed the line in his duty in the neighborhood watch by moving beyond simply reporting what he saw as suspicious behavior and by carrying a firearm when he wasn't supposed to be.

If Martin was indeed profiled -- the reporting is that there have been many thefts by young black men recently -- then the issue of Zimmerman crossing the vigilante line is even more important.

Most of the support for Zimmerman appears to be coming from the gun lobby...who's position is just as absurd as Al Sharpton.

-spence


Zimmerman also had a right to be where he was.So if Martin attacked Zimmerman, as some have reported, then Martin could be the vigilante attacking whites for what he assumed was profiling and Zimmerman the victim, who had a right to protect himself.

No, it's clearly spelled out in the community watch rules that Zimmerman was supposed to be following. As the chief of the neighborhood watch you'd think he'd know them better than anyone.



I haven't seen anything that indicates Zimmerman didn't cross this line completely on his own judgement.

Al Sharpton doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It's a deke by some to distract from the substance of this issue.

I think it's going to boil down to two simple things, Martin had every right to be where he was, and Zimmerman crossed the line in his duty in the neighborhood watch by moving beyond simply reporting what he saw as suspicious behavior and by carrying a firearm when he wasn't supposed to be.

If Martin was indeed profiled -- the reporting is that there have been many thefts by young black men recently -- then the issue of Zimmerman crossing the vigilante line is even more important.

Most of the support for Zimmerman appears to be coming from the gun lobby...who's position is just as absurd as Al Sharpton.

-spence

"No, it's clearly spelled out in the community watch rules that Zimmerman was supposed to be following. As the chief of the neighborhood watch you'd think he'd know them better than anyone."

Last time I checked, Zimmerman has the right to get out of his car and walk. Did he do more than that? Did he instigate? Probably. But I wasn't there, and I'll wait for the facts. I learned that from the mistake I made in rushing to judgment in the Duke lacrosse case.

"Al Sharpton doesn't really have anything to do with this case."

So I'm making it up? Sharpton wasn't using this case to fan the flames of hate like he always does? Sharpton has nothing to do with it? Tell that to the white folk who have been beaten in retaliation for this. Tell that to the elderly couple who had to move into a hotel because Spike Lee Tweeted their address. Tell that to Zimmerman, who had a bounty put on his head by the Black Panthers.

Spence, you make stuff up when it suits you. i do not.

"Most of the support for Zimmerman appears to be coming from the gun lobby"

Wrong, and made up. I have no connection to the gun lobby. I doubt Alan Dershowitz does either.

Spence, get a grip, man.

No, it's clearly spelled out in the community watch rules that Zimmerman was supposed to be following. As the chief of the neighborhood watch you'd think he'd know them better than anyone.

No, it's clearly spelled out in the community watch rules that Zimmerman was supposed to be following. As the chief of the neighborhood watch you'd think he'd know them better than anyone.


Quote:
10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department. which was violated? sounds like he was engaged in "non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of those situations" read FAQ's

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...amHandbook.pdf


I haven't seen anything that indicates Zimmerman didn't cross this line completely on his own judgement. what evidence suggests he did?

I think it's going to boil down to two simple things, Martin had every right to be where he was,
I can't find a definitive answer of exactly where Martin was staying that night, seems to vary from an aunt's house to a his dad's to his dad's girlfriend's to with his dad and his dad's fiancee, point is, if he wasn't staying in the gated community, he probably shouldn't have been there, doesn't mean you should get shot though

and Zimmerman crossed the line in his duty in the neighborhood watch by moving beyond simply reporting what he saw as suspicious behavior and by carrying a firearm when he wasn't supposed to be.

http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

FAQ'S

Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the role of a neighborhood watch member?

Mr. Zimmerman holds a concealed weapon permit issued from the State of Florida. He is authorized to carry the weapon in a concealed manner wherever Florida Statute dictates. Neighborhood Watch programs are designed for members of a neighborhood to be “eyes and ears” for police and to watch out for their neighbors.
They are not members of the Police Department nor are they vigilantes. Training provided by law enforcement agencies to Neighborhood Watch organizations stresses non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of those situations so that law enforcement can respond and take control of the situation. Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the Sanford Police Department.

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?

Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

If Martin was indeed profiled -- the reporting is that there have been many thefts by young black men recently -- then the issue of Zimmerman crossing the vigilante line is even more important.:confused:

Most of the support for Zimmerman appears to be coming from the gun lobby...who's position is just as absurd as Al Sharpton.:confused:

-spence

there are a lot of similarities to the 2009 Scott-Cervini case in Greece NY, Scott was acquitted...not much hooplah nationally.......

CNN-According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after briefly losing track of Martin, the teen approached him. After exchanging words, Zimmerman says, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into a sidewalk.

I think the photos of the back of his head and a witness confirm at least some of this and the wounds were obviously inflicted prior to the shooting, Scott had no such injuries that I'm aware of and pulled the trigger more than once...and no "Stand Your Ground" Law

there are a lot of similarities to the 2009 Scott-Cervini case in Greece NY, Scott was acquitted...not much hooplah nationally.......

If you were in NY it was a huge case.

So tell us scott, what are the similarities?

If you were in NY it was a huge case.

So tell us scott, what are the similarities?

Why should he bother sharing facts with you? So that you can accuse him of racism, like you did with Jimmy?

If you were in NY it was a huge case.

So tell us scott, what are the similarities?

"There are many similarities between the Scott-Cervini case and the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case in Florida. In both cases, there had been a spate of criminal activity in the neighborhood. In both cases, the shooters called 911 to report suspicious activity, yet chose to confront the unarmed suspects outside their residence and off their own property prior to the arrival of the police. In both cases, the shooters claimed that they felt threatened, and fired in self-defense. In both cases, local law enforcement applied relevant state law.

Unlike Florida, New York does not have a "stand your ground" law. New York law allows a person to use deadly force to defend his residence from home invasion only as a last resort. It does not allow the use of deadly force to prevent a property crime, and requires retreat if possible. Thus, while Zimmerman was not arrested under Florida law, Scott was tried for manslaughter.

New York law does allow a person to use deadly force anywhere, including off his own property, if he feels that his life is in imminent danger and retreat is not possible. Despite the fact that he left his own property, confronted, and shot dead an unarmed white person thought to be committing a petty property crime, Scott was acquitted by a majority-white jury after claiming that the Cervini charged at him, putting him in imminent fear of his life."



I don't think Martin was shot because he was smuggling Skittles or profiled for wearing a hoodie, he was shot because he somehow ended up on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the ground(I'm just going by the evidence), how he ended up there is a matter for the jury to decide but I don't think I'd be justified if I was being followed by a homeless person asking for change and ended up on top of them beating their head into the sidewalk because they were bothering me or profiling me as someone who might give them some money:)..they have a right to be on the sidewalk just as I'd have a right to walk past them, if they ask me a question or even harass me verbally, I don't have a right to beat them...

"There are many similarities between the Scott-Cervini case and the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case in Florida. In both cases, there had been a spate of criminal activity in the neighborhood. In both cases, the shooters called 911 to report suspicious activity, yet chose to confront the unarmed suspects outside their residence and off their own property prior to the arrival of the police. In both cases, the shooters claimed that they felt threatened, and fired in self-defense. In both cases, local law enforcement applied relevant state law.

Cervini and his friends were high/drunk and Scott saw them attempting to break into a car.

What was Trayvon doing?

Unlike Florida, New York does not have a "stand your ground" law. New York law allows a person to use deadly force to defend his residence from home invasion only as a last resort. It does not allow the use of deadly force to prevent a property crime, and requires retreat if possible. Thus, while Zimmerman was not arrested under Florida law, Scott was tried for manslaughter.

New York is a victim state to put it simply.
No relevance.

New York law does allow a person to use deadly force anywhere, including off his own property, if he feels that his life is in imminent danger and retreat is not possible. Despite the fact that he left his own property, confronted, and shot dead an unarmed white person thought to be committing a petty property crime, Scott was acquitted by a majority-white jury after claiming that the Cervini charged at him, putting him in imminent fear of his life."

Thought? Read the reports. He was actively committing a crime according to Scott.

I don't think Martin was shot because he was smuggling Skittles or profiled for wearing a hoodie, he was shot because he somehow ended up on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the ground(I'm just going by the evidence), how he ended up there is a matter for the jury to decide but I don't think I'd be justified if I was being followed by a homeless person asking for change and ended up on top of them beating their head into the sidewalk because they were bothering me or profiling me as someone who might give them some money:)..they have a right to be on the sidewalk just as I'd have a right to walk past them, if they ask me a question or even harass me verbally, I don't have a right to beat them...

How do you draw a gun while having your head bashed into pavement?

I don't think Martin was shot because he was smuggling Skittles or profiled for wearing a hoodie, he was shot because he somehow ended up on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the ground(I'm just going by the evidence), how he ended up there is a matter for the jury to decide but I don't think I'd be justified if I was being followed by a homeless person asking for change and ended up on top of them beating their head into the sidewalk because they were bothering me or profiling me as someone who might give them some money:)..they have a right to be on the sidewalk just as I'd have a right to walk past them, if they ask me a question or even harass me verbally, I don't have a right to beat them...
Your analogy assumes no suspicion of malice, it's quite reasonable to think that Martin felt threatened. If some guy was following me in the dark in an unfamiliar neighborhood you'd better believe I'd have my guard up.

Interesting to read that Zimmerman has caught a criminal and held them for the police before. That combined with his remark on the 911 tape that "these a$$holes always get away" seems to establish a clear motive for his actions contrary to the rules established for the neighborhood watch. I think the prosecution will be able to establish a pattern of behavior and portray Zimmerman as someone who for good intentions crossed the line into vigilante justice which willingly put him in a position where he was threatened.

Considering the result was a dead kid, I don't see how Zimmerman can escape responsibility for his actions. We'll see.

-spence

Cervini and his friends were high/drunk and Scott saw them attempting to break into a car.

What was Trayvon doing?

why does it matter?...

in both cases the stage was set by recent crime in the vicinity

at the time of the incident Scott saw the kids hanging around a car acting suspiciously, left his home loaded his weapon and confronted the kids on the street while his wife called the police(just going by the reports), at the time, Zimmerman spotted Martin hanging around the club house acting suspiciously and called the police....neither knew about any of the other stuff until afterward, Scott could have yelled from his doorway that he was calling the police and then closed and locked his door just as Zimmerman could have gotten into his car and locked the door and waited for the police....Scott fired twice, once apparently in the back, prior to an altercation....Zimmerman fired sometime during or after an altercation in which he was badly battered...

New York is a victim state to put it simply.
No relevance.
?


Thought? Read the reports. He was actively committing a crime according to Scott.

report says they were rummaging for cigarettes in an unlocked car, again, neither Zimmerman nor Scott really knew what the kid(s) were up to but inserted themselves into a situation that ended very badly, Zimmerman had a right to be in his neighborhood and ask Martin what he was doing there just as Scott had a right to be on his sidewalk and ask what the kids were doing near the car, both could have retreated to safety, both claim that they were threatened/attacked, Zimmerman bore physical evidence


How do you draw a gun while having your head bashed into pavement?

probably out of desperation :uhuh:

Interesting to read that Zimmerman has caught a criminal and held them for the police before.


seems to establish a clear motive for his actions contrary to the rules established for the neighborhood watch.

again...which one?

and is this the quote that you are referring to?

"He once caught a thief and an arrest was made," Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association, told the Herald. "He helped solve a lot of crimes."

Oh how cute! A personal attack! Let me make a funny like you RIJimmy; steers and queers. Hurry up, they're calling you.

And lets look at some facts.
"They always get away" his words
"Damn coons" his words
Seems he thought he was doing the 'right' thing. And I bet he thought he was in the right for shooting the kid.

Jimmy, lets get down to brass tacks here, are you afraid of black people?

Im sorry you only see things one way. 90% of your posts are personal attacks. If we are discussing a court case and you can only see one side, you are missing 50%. Court cases are not one sided. I tried to show, very clearly, the other side which is a much more compelling argument that you presented. You seem to be the one filled with hatred, I am looking at the evidence as I see it. I could care less what race of the people involved are.

No Disrespect but.....

Came across this on the web and thought it was great... I heard so much about this case... He is gonna have an unfair trial. No one was there to know what really happened,, its all he said she said Bull #^&#^&#^&#^&.

Zimmerman also had a right to be where he was.So if Martin attacked Zimmerman, as some have reported, then Martin could be the vigilante attacking whites for what he assumed was profiling and Zimmerman the victim, who had a right to protect himself.

:agree:

Zimmerman's injury report has been released!

Lock your doors and load your guns!That's what you'll have to do when Zimmerman gets acquitted and the president has to express his disappointment.The projects and surrounding suburbs will be in flames!

WOOHOO!!!....2012 is shapin' up to be fine one boys and girls.Bring on Dec.21st!!!!!

I guess I will play a Philadelphia lawyer like the rest here. Self defense.

NOT GUILTY!!!!!

Zimmerman's injury report has been released!
Yep, sounds like he was getting his a$$ kicked by the kid he profiled as a criminal so he shot him. Nothing like a little vigilante injustice...no wonder the police hate it.

The irony is some here are advocating for Zimmerman to defend the right to carry...when in fact a full Zimmerman acquittal will probably set gun rights BACK across the country.

-spence

Yep, sounds like he was getting his a$$ kicked by the kid he profiled as a criminal so he shot him. Nothing like a little vigilante injustice...no wonder the police hate it.

The irony is some here are advocating for Zimmerman to defend the right to carry...when in fact a full Zimmerman acquittal will probably set gun rights BACK across the country.

-spence


If the kid was kicking his ass, he is a criminal!
I think you will see more guns bought. Gun rights are what they are...a Right.

If the kid was kicking his ass, he is a criminal!

Only if unprovoked, but by following Martin, Zimmerman had likely established himself as the aggressor. Zimmerman's previous behavior and remarks on the tape would back up the allegation that he got out of his vehicle with the intent to cause a conflict.

Now certainly Zimmerman will argue that it was in good faith, and it quite possibly was. But that doesn't mean he doesn't still have responsibility for his own judgement.

-spence

Only if unprovoked, but by following Martin, Zimmerman had likely established himself as the aggressor. Zimmerman's previous behavior and remarks on the tape would back up the allegation that he got out of his vehicle with the intent to cause a conflict.

Now certainly Zimmerman will argue that it was in good faith, and it quite possibly was. But that doesn't mean he doesn't still have responsibility for his own judgement.

-spence

I agree he used bad judgement. That does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman. He just chose the wrong time and guy to be a tough guy with. Would Zimmerman have followed Martin had he been unarmed?...doubt it.
Would Martin have attacked Zimmerman if he knew he was armed?...doubt that too.

Times have changed since 9/11. People don't stand around anymore. They act.

:huh:

:huh: