See other Editorial Articles
Title: An Open Letter to the Parents of Trayvon Martin
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 6, 2013
Author: Glenda Wells
Post Date: 2013-08-06 00:10:23 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 2229
Comments: 237
Ms Fulton, Mr Martin I mourn your loss more than I can possibly say but let's be clear. Your son had as much opportunity to walk away as Mr Zimmerman did but chose instead to be aggressive himself. Just as a reminder, Mr Zimmerman did not use Stand Your Ground as a defense. The facts are indisputable that your son was on top and pounding Mr Zimmerman. Your son was not stalked. Mr Zimmerman was judged in a court of law to be not guilty therefore no punishment is warranted. Your son was depicted by the media as a young boy and portrayed as an innocent but let's be honest. We know that was not a true picture. Instead we learned you're son was a drug dealer and petty thief. Where were you when he should have been learning respect? Where were you when he needed the kind of guidance that would make him a good and decent man? Your efforts now seem like the desperate reach of parents trying to make up for in death what they failed in life. To think otherwise would paint you as a crass and heartless people looking for personal gain on the grave of a soul lost too soon. I am the Florida state coordinator for Gun Rights Across America. I represent more than 2,000 law abiding citizens who believe in our God-given right to defend ourselves, our families and our property against the kind of aggression displayed by your son that awful night and by countless thugs and criminals across the nation every day. GRAA has the support of thousands of members in every state and we have the backing of millions more in hundreds of Patriot and Constitutional groups around the country. We will fight any effort designed to give thugs and criminals power over law abiding citizens. We have no duty to retreat. We will not run and hide. We are many. We are mighty. And we vote. Respectfully and with heartfelt sadness. Glenda Wells
Gun Rights Across America, Florida State Coordinator
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 229.
#2. To: James Deffenbach, 4 (#0)
This author is not being honest, imo. Although I suspect this to be a Masonic-linked Op to stir up racial conflict, what's considered the reported evidence indicates that Martin (who had committed no "Running Man" crime that night by hurrying through his neighborhood to get home and out of the rain) was on the porch at his own home before the confrontation with Zimmerman. There are no witnesses that Zimmerman was aggressively struck first in the scenario -- just his word. That someone claimed it appeared to them that Zimmerman was being beaten while pinned to the ground doesn't mean they might not be mistaken or lying. Zimmerman's clothing did not look in film footage like he'd been on the wet ground, he requested help to restrain someone who most likely wouldn't even have been moving at that point and he tried to stop that person who had arrived with a flashlight from calling the police for help. That Zimmerman was reportedly in charge of patrolling the area for months and didn't know the names of the streets indicates he may have been motivated more by vigilantism than his safety duties. I think a good case could be made, though, for open carry instead of concealed carry by Neighborhood Watch patrols because that might prevent others being similarly shot by surprise during what was seemingly to them an unarmed fight with a probable stalker.
With this opening comment you stumble straight into the Land of Crackpottery.
With this opening comment you stumble straight into the Land of Crackpottery, thereby rendering anything else you state unworthy of serious debate. Reference: Post #5 of 4um Title: Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police A number of things about this controversy make no logical sense but there is more checkable evidence to suspect Masonic involvement in a staged Op than there is for the insistent narrative that this happened from an aggressive first-strike against Zimmerman by Martin, for which there are no actual witnesses whatsoever to that in the scenario other than the claims of Zimmerman who killed him. I don't take it for granted that his statements about that must be deemed unquestionable due to Martin not being wounded instead to survive and dispute them himself and don't think it's my perspective there that's unreasonable. I've seen it asserted in discussions about this that it doesn't matter who struck first in the fight, just that Zimmerman feared for his life -- except that it seems to matter for the purposes of convincing people that it means nothing if Martin was fighting in fear of a stalker; that his killing was completely justifiable (even though he wasn't being pursued because Zimmerman had been alerted to any criminal acts in the area that night) on the grounds that he was imperfect (Zimmerman's imperfections dismissable) and because Zimmerman claims that he was hit first. If that's the type of "reasoning" you consider worthy of serious debate, I can't agree but am not perplexed, then, if you aren't interested in seriously discussing the safety merits of the Open Carry issue for Neighborhood Watch patrollers and those they serve v. Concealed Carry.
No actual witnesses whatsoever to that scenario? Say what? Here's the transcript of John Good's testimony. John Good was the Prosecution's witness btw... legalinsurrection.com/201...mixed-martial-arts-style/ snip ...the longer the State’s witness was in the stand, the more damage he did to the State’s theory of the case. The continually growing climax was realized at the very end of the testimony, when O’Mara held a copy of Good’s initial statement to then-lead Investigator Chris Serino (a transcript of is provided below): O’Mara: Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK? “Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.” Is that the context in which that happened? Good: Yes. O’Mara: And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn’t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said: “Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point I told him I’m calling 911.” AND legalinsurrection.com/201...ideo-of-states-witnesses/ snip Once again, it was simply not a very good day at all for the prosecution. The primary State witnesses today were Rachel Jeantel, Jenna Lauer, and Selma Mora. The first had her credibility substantively destroyed, the second was powerfully–almost humiliatingly–co-opted by the defense, and the third provided testimony entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense.
The issue was who struck first. What you provided does not indicate anywhere that anyone ever witnessed Martin doing that. Good indicated that a fight was already in process before he saw anything. That is a fact in evidence and not Martin-apologetics. Because the "Good guy" claims to have seen Zimmerman being pounded on the ground at the time he looked doesn't mean that the fight couldn't have started with Martin the one being pounded to the ground at first. Establishing what's actually factual or not in this case doesn't seem to be as imporatant to many as a "Saint Zimmerman" narrative. I'd like to think real jurors would be more diligent but, from the recoil tensions witnessed in this case, it looks like the chances of that are slim to none.
Who struck first has zero to do with the use of necessary force to defend oneself from deadly physical force. To be clearer, let's assume Z struck Martin first. If TM responded by beating Z to the point he feared for his life, Z was within his rights to use necessary force to stop the attack. It's called self defense.
I don't have a problem agreeing with that. Ok. I suppose so except that what he described to the police in his reenactment video was not self defense so much as an accidental shooting that he wasn't even aware had happened to hit TM. There are serious oddities after that point and at least one of those examples that could perhaps be considered a criminal attempt to prevent a call to the police for emergency help by the man with a flashlight who couldn't have been sure that Z had already called them, as he claimed, or whether Martin had been shot in self defense/unintentionally or might have been murdered by Z. In addition to that, by Z's own account in the video, he not only did nothing himself to try and help Martin and didn't ask the man if he was able to help Martin or would get help for him, Z bizarrely insisted that he needed help from the man to restrain Martin who was likely not moving. If those examples were in evidence in a case that wasn't this one, wouldn't you think the attempted obstruction of a call to the police for help was at least indicative of reckless disregard for the life of someone who had used no weaponry against him?
Never happened. Z expresses surprise TM had died during his first police interview some hours after the incident, but he never once suggested the shooting was accidental.
JT Post #36: Never happened. Z expresses surprise TM had died during his first police interview some hours after the incident, but he never once suggested the shooting was accidental. Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police - at 12 minutes 54 seconds, says he didn't think he hit Trayvon when he shot him. Hannity interview article - transcription | Hannity interview video HANNITY: When you think back, there was one report or police report that actually said you didn’t know after you fired, you didn’t think — you thought you missed? ZIMMERMAN: I didn’t think I hit him, yes. ------------------------- Odd how he gave so many lawyer free interviews to the police and on TV too but didn't want to testify in court. Could you please source which interview and where in it those comments were made or an article about it? Am posting these two audio archives for access conveniene: George Zimmerman’s Statements To Sanford PD [Audio] Links to all of the available audio files from the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case
JT Post #36: Never happened. Z expresses surprise TM had died during his first police interview some hours after the incident, but he never once suggested the shooting was accidental. GreyLMist - I don't understand why you think the raw video you link to proves that what JT said is wrong. I watched the video. Zimmerman says he didn't realize his shot hit and mortally wounded Trayvon. Because Travyon initially was getting up saying something like "Okay, okay you got me." Zimmerman thought Trayvon was indicating to him that now he knew that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman did not say the shooting was "accidental". It's just that initially Zimmerman did not realize that his gun shot killed Trayvon because Trayvon was strong enough to attempt to get up off Zimmerman and talk to him. That's why Zimmerman tried to restrain restrain Trayvon after he fell to the ground by holding arms his arms apart on the ground. One thing that that shouted out to me as I watched this video reanactment by Zimmerman was what a small statured man Zimmerman was at the time of the shooting. I did not realize that fact because most of the photos MSM had published of Zimmerman's face during the trail was of a big fat faced person, implying that Zimmerman was a big man, while Trayvon's photos showed a young 12 year old looking little "kid." In fact, the reverse was true. Zimmerman was a very small guy. I'm definitely much taller than Zimmerman and Zimmerman didn't look too heavy either. Travyon was 5'11" and 155/160 lbs. Big difference between Trayvon and Zimmerman in stature.
GreyLmist is the only person I know that connected the word accidental to the shooting. No proof has been offered because none exists.
I said: not self defense so much as an accidental shooting, meaning more like an This case has morphed into a vitriolic "Stand Your Ground on the Narrative, right or wrong" thing for many against any questions, objections or attempts to right the record. I don't know what it is about this issue that seems to make the very same people who have strongly opposed harassment and overreach by so-called "authority" figures suddenly toss all that out to condone it for Zimmerman who never even identified himself as a Neighborhood Watch official and wasn't dressed like a Security Guard either. But I'm not set on standing my ground on the accidental shooting possibility rather than self defense. It might have been to Zimmerman's advantage if considered an accidental killing but I'm willing to debate it as a strictly self defense issue. Zimmerman was examined and treated by Paramedics at the scene and his alleged injuries were not determined to be serious enough to be transported to the hospital for stitches or x-rays, etc. He was taken directly to the police station for questioning. It's being asserted that it was wrong for Trayvon to use unarmed force to try and incapacitate Zimmeran but not wrong for Zimmerman to deliberately shoot him to death in the heart rather than try to stop the fight by firing a warning shot or aiming at his arm. Explain, please, how that amounts to "necessary force" under the definitions of self defense. In your opinion, did Zimmerman have more right because he was armed to use more force against his opponent to cause their death than they did to subdue him? Edited 1st sentence + 1st and last sentence of last paragraph + spacing.
Zimmerman used necessary force to terminate a potential life threatening felonious assault. His single shot to TMs center mass is the textbook method taught to civilians and LEOs alike. Warning shots and shots to the toes, finger tips, etc are the things of TeeVee, not real life.
No felonious assault against Zimmerman was said to be witnessed, just a fight in-process and Zimmerman said that he had moved to the grass, so he did not shoot Martin to stop his head from being banged into cement. At #30, you said: You seem to be saying there that if an unarmed person is defending themself successfully in a struggle against an attacker, their attacker can shoot them to death in the heart and that is considered necessary force for the attacker's self defense, so they shouldn't be charged with anything if they claim the deceased made them fear for their life. Additionally, even though Zimmerman says the fight had moved to the grass where he wasn't in danger of the cement and his face didn't appear to have been beaten (just a small scratch on his nose and a small mark or two on his head alleged to the fight) and his hands showed no signs of a defensive struggle in a life threatening situation, you seem to be saying that it's ok to end a fisticuffs fight by shooting someone to death in the heart -- all that's required for that to be considered "necessary deadly force in self defense" is to claim to have been in fear of losing their own life, since the dead person can't contest the claim. That seems like it would be one way to reduce the workload of the police and courts but not reasonably.
The unarmed person (TM) was the aggressor, and not the defender. Again, according to the sole eye witness, John Good, Z (the defender) was yelling for help. The jurists believed Z was indeed losing the fight badly as we subsequently learned and justifiably used deadly physical force to terminate the attack. Had TM survived he would have been charged with felonious assault.
There is no evidence that TM was the aggressor and Good's testimony isn't evidence of that. He did not see the start of the fight. The news footage of Z at the station that night doesn't show that he was losing the fight badly and neither do the videos the next day of his Reenactment and his CVSA interview. Justifiable use of deadly force to terminate an unarmed physical fight is not indicated by his appearance in any of those films and his hands showed no defensive wounds.
Wrong. We're talking about what Good testified to. He testified that TM was on top of Z "in the dominate position" delivering blows to Z "MMA, ground and pound style." Further, he testified that Z was screaming for help. Once again you mind has managed to skip off into areas that haven't been testified to.
Wrong. We're talking about what Good testified to. He testified that TM was on top of Z "in the dominate position" delivering blows to Z "MMA, ground and pound style." Further, he testified that Z was screaming for help. That has nothing to do with seeing who was the aggressor/assaulter in starting the fight -- just a fight in process. You probably know that, really, but have some reason for insisting otherwise and making matters needlessly worse so that people lose even more hope and confidence in any due process in this country.
Show me anywhere, on this thread or elsewhere, where I argued who started the fight. Unlike you I'm not speculating on things that aren't in evidence, I'm simply offering you material that has been testified to, and subsequently accepted by the jury as fact. Now, don't leave this point you raised; show me *anywhere* where I argued as to who started the fight. If you aren't able to find it, be mature enough to acknowledge it.
James Deffenbach at #181: It's hard for any of us to admit we're wrong about something but we are all wrong at times. And you are right, the honorable thing to do is to own up to it and thank those who have pointed out where you were in error. But we don't see much of that and none on this thread. Jethro Tull to me at #182: Show me anywhere, on this thread or elsewhere, where I argued who started the fight. Unlike you I'm not speculating on things that aren't in evidence, I'm simply offering you material that has been testified to, and subsequently accepted by the jury as fact. Now, don't leave this point you raised; show me *anywhere* where I argued as to who started the fight. If you aren't able to find it, be mature enough to acknowledge it. All throughout this thread, I have been discussing the issue of who started the fight in terms of the aggressor/assaulter. At #162, JT, you said: "The unarmed person (TM) was the aggressor, and not the defender. Again, according to the sole eye witness, John Good, Z (the defender) was yelling for help. ... Had TM survived he would have been charged with felonious assault." When I disagreed at #172, saying: "There is no evidence that TM was the aggressor and Good's testimony isn't evidence of that", you replied at #174 that was wrong and went into Good's testimony again as proof. My understanding was that we were discussing the aggressor/assaulter as the starter of the fight. You are claiming now, seemingly, to have a different interpretation of such terms, as if to mean TM overpowering GZ at the time John Good observed the situation and not that TM started the fight. I don't see that I erred in my view of the terms aggressor/assault but would not refuse to apologize if wrong. I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning but it sounds confusing to me and like moving the goal posts, unintentionally or not. As for the limited perspectives alluded to at #178, imo, that would be conspiratorially confining the scope of this as an Op to merely the Media's usual bag of racebaiting tricks, inflammatory hyping and "journalistic" deceit.
I've only discussed what's in evidence, that would include Zs statement as to how it started, but I've never argued how it began. In fact, for the sake of debate, I've stated even if Z started the fight, TM was constrained by law to use only necessary force to terminate the assault. John Good, incredibly a witness for the prosecution, turned the case with his (already discussed too much) testimony, IMO.
I've discussed what's in evidence too. The evidence from Zimmerman himself is that he had moved to the grass before the time of the shooting and so wasn't having his head banged into the cement. Reference the Hannity video segment I cited above on that.
10:30 - 11:30 ********* **********************
[Zimmeran's Reenactment video] 10:30 - 11:30 Rephrasing for clarity: "The evidence from Zimmerman himself is that he had moved to the grass before the time of the shooting and so wasn't having his head banged into the cement" thereafter, if that had really even happened. Reference cbsnews.com. The Good guy "testified that he didn't see the person on top smashing the other person's head into the sidewalk, as Zimmerman claims Martin did before he fatally shot the teen." ... and "that he couldn't confirm the person on top was hitting the other person." The video timestamping should extend to 12:20. That is when he says he had squirmed off the cement and the self defense issue moved with him at the point -- from the realm of potentially deadly physical force that he claims was inflicted against him but no headbanging (intentional or accidental) was witnessed versus lethal gunfire being called "necessary force" to terminate a person's life in a fight that had shifted to the grass. At #105, you spoke of necessary force as equal force but, in courtroom-jargon, the sidewalk headbanger charge against Martin doesn't have "standing" for a fight continuance on the lawn. The assumption seems to be that it was Trayvon's intent for Zimmerman to be positioned with his head over the cement, rather than Z just landing that way, then getting slammed around haphazardly and unthinkingly by him in the heat of the fight. Z implied that his head was purposely being banged there but he was able to move out of danger of that area to the yard and he didn't claim that T was trying to prevent him from scooting away from the pavement. He asserted that T was trying by that time to muffle his yelling, not bang his head. Most likely, T wouldn't have been able to do both at the same time. Reference the Reenactment video link at 11:14-12:16. If you back up in that video to 8:56-9:34, then all his conflicting statements there and elsewhere about what he was doing on his supposed mission to Retreat View Circle by the longest route there and where he was to meet the police come into question. Back up further to 6:59 where he talks about T coming back from behind the building and circling his car -- not menacingly to start a fight or even speak audibly to him that would indicate his intent was other than to probably get the model and license number of his vehicle to report Z as a possible stalker. Then, inexplicably, Z claims that he couldn't remember the name of the street and got out of his car to allegedly go in search of an address for a street farther away from his location that he didn't give the dispatcher anyway. More probably he got out of his vehicle instead of waiting there for the police or at the clubhouse so as to prevent T from making a suspicious person report about him, if he could, as he had done about T. What's clear from his own statements in the course of the call with the dispatcher is that he had been following Trayvon. I'm not sure what Zimmerman's acquital symbolizes for those still rallying around him but it looks like a miscarriage of Justice, imo. By not waiting at his vehicle for the police, he's caused heaps of aggravations over the 2nd Amendment, self defense issues, and even for Neighborhood Watch groups and Homeowners Associations. On top of all that, the Stand Your Ground law is being targeted when it didn't even figure in his defense on account of Standing Your Ground in Pursuit of Someone isn't rightly what it's meant to be about. That's all on top of the racial agitation he's foisted on America. Cui Bono?
Whoa there, are you telling us that the Zimmerman jury got the verdict wrong?? If yes, IYO, what should the verdict have been, what charge (s) do you consider appropriate, and what specific evidence supports your contention.
I believe they put too much stock in Zimmerman's credibility and got the verdict wrong, yes. They might have decided as they did because they didn't have full access to his problematic statements for intensive study as others not on the jury have had. Zimmerman's statements are so inconsistent and bizarre, too, that I suspect he might have been on a Vigilante-like hunting expedition that night -- looking to make trouble with malice aforethought when there otherwise wouldn't have been any. If this really happened, Murder in the 2nd Degree might have been an undercharge. At the very least, as I've noted before, Z exhibited reckless disregard, imo, for the life of someone who had used no weaponry against him when he did nothing to try and help or get help for Trayvon and also moved to prevent a call to the police for emergency help. I don't know what the degrees of Manslaughter stipulate on that, if anything, but I do not believe he had to shoot someone to death over a fight ongoing in the grass, nor would I accept his dubious word that he had to preemptively kill Martin to stop him from getting to his gun. He claimed in his statements that he thought Martin had been hitting him with something in his hands but at no point did he claim to have even tried to use his cellphone or keys as objects to strike back at him with more equal force to try and get away. He implausibly claims that he didn't hit at Martin at all in a supposedly lifethreating struggle and only tried to move his hands away. I think he could have fired a warning shot to try and stop the fight, if he wanted to, or aimed somewhere less lethal more easily. Instead, he risked the gun being grabbed or knocked out of his hand as he maneuvered it upward by his opponent's arm to shoot him in the chest. I think that shows his intent was to end the fight with more force than was necessary by killing him. If Zimmerman had so much as bought Trayvon a beer, he could have been charged with contributing to the underage drinking delinquency of a minor. I'm not sure what the appropriate charge against him for this should have been but his headbanging self defense plea fell on the wet grass, sort of like Trayvon's headset was said to have done. His preemptive strike scenario, alleged as if necessary force to keep Trayvon from getting his gun, would have been unnecessary in my view, is unsubstantiated, his word is slithery and his spin on that sounds Neocon-esque Creepy to me. Ironically, Officer Smith testified at 43:22-45:00 that Z (who neglected to help or get help and obstructed help for Trayvon) commented twice as if he was bewildered that no one had come out to help him while he was yelling. But somebody with a flashlight did come out to help, even though they didn't get there fast enough to do much, so that's just one more example (like claiming to have forgotten the name of the street he was on when there are only 3 streets in the complex) which indicates he has like memory flash-problems, maybe due to his prescribed controlled substance medications. Edited for spelling + last sentence.
Have you ever been in an altercation, GreyLmist or handled a firearm?
Yes and yes.
How on earth do you fire a warning shot at someone that you're grappling with? In such a situation you're with a hair of being disarmed by an extremely agitated adversary. This is a dangerous spot to be in and you can't screw around. By the way, this situation indicates that TM had the drop on GZ. Had it been the other way around GZ would have unholstered first, no? It just plain buggers the imagination that GZ would hunt a guy down and attack him bare hands first when he had a pistol in his belt putting himself in a precarious situation with what is plainly a superior opponent.
The same way you'd fire into their body but in a different direction -- with less difficulty in aiming and less chance of being disarmed in the process. How on earth was GZ even able to get to his gun if TM was straddling him then as he says? Where was TM's leg at the time on that side? GZ's story about his jacket moving up doesn't adequately explain that away. Right and hence my noting that there were better options, imo, than moving the gun upwards by his opponent's arm, which was a dangerously risky maneuver. I don't think GZ hunted him down and attacked him bare hands first -- or not fisticuffs-style, anyway. More likely than that, since there's scant evidence of a struggle on the hands of either one of them, would be GZ rendering TM unconcious somehow where he stood as he spoke to him and all the one-sided hollering heard with TM allegedly witnessed pinning him down and pummeling him during a supposed fracas a staged show as a cover-story for Z, with the point-blank gunfire the "grand finale". Just a thought as a possibility that probably does sound wildly imaginative to most people -- except that he talked about his Army service in Virginia early on in his CVSA interview, so I'm not someone under the impression that he wouldn't know how to disable TM quickly. Edited for spelling.
If you had any idea at all how insane that sounds you wouldn't have posted it. At least I don't think you would have. How did Zimmerman render Saint Skittles unconscious, a Vulcan Death Grip? LOL! This could be quite entertaining I suppose but I have met my quota for entertainment and will now leave you to the tender mercies of Jethro Tull--he seems willing to go on trying to show you the error of your ways but I am about convinced at this point that you don't want to know.
No thanks JD. I've been asked by the Queen of Odd not to communicate with her so her wish is my command. I only wish she had detailed her psychotic theory earlier on in this thread. I was under the mistaken impression she actually was debating in good faith.
#230. To: Jethro Tull (#229)
I know how your heart must be hurting over that. But you will get over it in the fullness of time--I suspect it might take as long as three seconds.
Wow. Ain't that sumthin'? Thanks, randgey. Can't say as I couldn't have made it this far without ya eventually -- just maybe not quite as fast. This is fantastic, though! Before our little speculative chat earlier that got wongfully seized upon and then turned into this here ritzy title for me, I could scarcely get a modicum of respect from him on my communications, nor those close to me by extension either. Now this! P.S. to JT: I said "don't bother yourself to ever speak to me again", knave. If it doesn't bother you to do that or you're ok with being bothered by speaking to me or you'd just prefer not to, that's different, of course. Edited last sentence.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestlet's be honest.
#4. To: GreyLmist (#2)
(Edited)
This author is not being honest, imo. Although I suspect this to be a Masonic-linked Op to stir up racial conflict
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
This author is not being honest, imo. Although I suspect this to be a Masonic-linked Op to stir up racial conflict
#11. To: GreyLmist, Jethro Tull (#8)
A number of things about this controversy make no logical sense but there is more checkable evidence to suspect Masonic involvement in a staged Op than there is for the insistent narrative that this happened from an aggressive first-strike against Zimmerman by Martin, for which there are no actual witnesses whatsoever to that in the scenario other than the claims of Zimmerman who killed him.
#20. To: scrapper2 (#11)
#30. To: GreyLmist (#20)
The issue was who struck first
#35. To: Jethro Tull (#30)
Who struck first has zero to do with the use of necessary force to defend oneself from deadly physical force.
To be clearer, let's assume Z struck Martin first.
If TM responded by beating Z to the point he feared for his life, Z was within his rights to use necessary force to stop the attack. It's called self defense.
#36. To: GreyLmist (#35)
I suppose so except that what he described to the police in his reenactment video was not self defense so much as an accidental shooting that he wasn't even aware had happened to hit TM.
#64. To: Jethro Tull (#36)
Me: what he described to the police in his reenactment video was not self defense so much as an accidental shooting that he wasn't even aware had happened to hit TM.
5. He didn’t know he’d shot Trayvon
JT Post #16: BTW, Serino tried to shake Zimmerman up in one of his five, voluntary, lawyer free interviews. He told him that there was a possibility that the fight was caught by a camera. Zimmerman's reaction? He thanked god and hoped that it was true.
#98. To: GreyLmist, Jethro Tull (#64)
Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police - at 12 minutes 54 seconds, says he didn't think he hit Trayvon when he shot him.
#102. To: scrapper2, GreyLmist (#98)
#144. To: Jethro Tull, All (#102)
(Edited)
GreyLmist is the only person I know that connected the word accidental to the shooting. No proof has been offered because none exists.
alleged accidental shooting than self defense.
#151. To: GreyLmist (#144)
In your opinion, did Zimmerman have more right because he was armed to use more force against his opponent to cause their death than they did to subdue him?
#160. To: Jethro Tull (#151)
Zimmerman used necessary force to terminate a potential life threatening felonious assault.
Who struck first has zero to do with the use of necessary force to defend oneself from deadly physical force. To be clearer, let's assume Z struck Martin first. If TM responded by beating Z to the point he feared for his life, Z was within his rights to use necessary force to stop the attack. It's called self defense.
#162. To: GreyLmist (#160)
You seem to be saying there that if an unarmed person is defending themself successfully in a struggle against an attacker, their attacker can shoot them to death in the heart and that is considered necessary force for the attacker's self defense, so they shouldn't be charged with anything if they claim the deceased made them fear for their life.
#172. To: Jethro Tull (#162)
The unarmed person (TM) was the aggressor, and not the defender. Again, according to the sole eye witness, John Good, Z (the defender) was yelling for help. The jurists believed Z was indeed losing the fight badly as we subsequently learned and justifiably used deadly physical force to terminate the attack.
#174. To: GreyLmist (#172)
There is no evidence that TM was the aggressor and Good's testimony isn't evidence of that
#180. To: Jethro Tull (#174)
There is no evidence that TM was the aggressor and Good's testimony isn't evidence of that
#182. To: GreyLmist (#180)
That has nothing to do with seeing who was the aggressor/assaulter in starting the fight
#186. To: Jethro Tull, James Deffenbach (#182)
Jethro Tull at #178: When a person is proven to have gotten a fact wrong, the honorable thing to do is to acknowledge their error and move on. What's happening in this thread is a prime example of ignorance, as in lack of knowledge, coupled with a juvenile conspiratorial mindset.
#187. To: GreyLmist (#186)
My understanding was that we were discussing the aggressor/assaulter as the starter of the fight.
#189. To: Jethro Tull (#187)
I've only discussed what's in evidence, that would include Zs statement as to how it started, but I've never argued how it began. In fact, for the sake of debate, I've stated even if Z started the fight, TM was constrained by law to use only necessary force to terminate the assault. John Good, incredibly a witness for the prosecution, turned the case with his (already discussed too much) testimony, IMO.
#194. To: GreyLmist (#189)
The evidence from Zimmerman himself is that he had moved to the grass before the time of the shooting and so wasn't having his head banged into the cement
#199. To: Jethro Tull (#194)
Me: The evidence from Zimmerman himself is that he had moved to the grass before the time of the shooting and so wasn't having his head banged into the cement
#200. To: GreyLmist (#199)
I'm not sure what Zimmerman's acquital symbolizes for those still rallying around him
#201. To: Jethro Tull (#200)
(Edited)
Whoa there, are you telling us that the Zimmerman jury got the verdict wrong??
If yes, IYO, what should the verdict have been, what charge (s) do you consider appropriate, and what specific evidence supports your contention.
#203. To: GreyLmist (#201)
#216. To: randge (#203)
Have you ever been in an altercation, GreyLmist or handled a firearm?
#217. To: GreyLmist (#216)
I think he could have fired a warning shot to try and stop the fight, if he wanted to, or aimed somewhere less lethal more easily. Instead, he risked the gun being grabbed or knocked out of his hand as he maneuvered it upward by his opponent's arm to shoot him in the chest.
#221. To: randge (#217)
(Edited)
How on earth do you fire a warning shot at someone that you're grappling with?
In such a situation you're with a hair of being disarmed by an extremely agitated adversary. This is a dangerous spot to be in and you can't screw around.
By the way, this situation indicates that TM had the drop on GZ. Had it been the other way around GZ would have unholstered first, no? It just plain buggers the imagination that GZ would hunt a guy down and attack him bare hands first when he had a pistol in his belt putting himself in a precarious situation with what is plainly a superior opponent.
#228. To: GreyLmist, Jethro Tull (#221)
More likely than that, since there's scant evidence of a struggle on the hands of either one of them, would be GZ rendering TM unconcious somehow where he stood as he spoke to him and all the one-sided hollering heard with TM allegedly witnessed pinning him down and pummeling him during a supposed fracas a staged show as a cover-story for Z, with the point-blank gunfire the "grand finale".
#229. To: James Deffenbach (#228)
If you had any idea at all how insane that sounds you wouldn't have posted it. At least I don't think you would have. How did Zimmerman render Saint Skittles unconscious, a Vulcan Death Grip? LOL! This could be quite entertaining I suppose but I have met my quota for entertainment and will now leave you to the tender mercies of Jethro Tull--he seems willing to go on trying to show you the error of your ways but I am about convinced at this point that you don't want to know.
Replies to Comment # 229. I've been asked by the Queen of Odd not to communicate with her...
#231. To: Jethro Tull, randge (#229)
(Edited)
I've been asked by the Queen of Odd not to communicate with her so her wish is my command.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 229.