Trayvon / Media

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it would be the conservative way

-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.

[scottw]

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....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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/investigati...amHandbook.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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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

"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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

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

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

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...

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

"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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[the point]

No Disrespect but.....

[the point]

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 #^&#^&#^&#^&.

[MotoXcowboy]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[basswipe]

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!!!!!

[Fly Rod]

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

NOT GUILTY!!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[MotoXcowboy]

[MotoXcowboy]