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: 3285
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
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Spot on.
Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehood’s school. And the one man who dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool. – Plato (429-347 BC)
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I believe she is. And the available evidence shows that it happened the way Zimmerman said it did, not the way the apologists for Martin said. Paul Craig Roberts
With this opening comment you stumble straight into the Land of Crackpottery.
The thug-life caught up to Young Saint Trayvon sooner than later. Regrettable, but the little brat made his choices in life and lost when he rolled the dice and tangled with an armed man.
#2. To: James Deffenbach, 4 (#0)
let's be honest.
#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)
This author is not being honest, imo.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#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
#5. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
...let's be honest....Instead we learned you're son was a drug dealer and petty thief.
-Alex Kurtagic
#6. To: X-15 (#5)
That's exactly how I feel about it. Shows an extreme lack of intelligence to assault some stranger that you know nothing about, including whether they may be armed. But you know what Forest Gump's mama said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#7. To: X-15 (#5)
Nothing more to say - thanks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
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. This author is not being honest, imo. Although I suspect this to be a Masonic-linked Op to stir up racial conflict
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#9. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
Noting as nice that you edited your post to stop there. I'd rather not rewrite my reply to remove references to the redaction, if you don't mind. If you do mind, let me know within the Editing timeframe and I'll try to rephrase that post. With this opening comment you stumble straight into the Land of Crackpottery.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#10. To: GreyLmist (#8)
I stopped right there. The only controversy that remains is within some with very active imaginations, most of whom never watched as much as one minute of the trial as it played out in real time. Let me sum up the Zimmerman trial for you, neatly, quickly and accurately. Zimmerman used self-defense as his defense, so regardless of how the fight started, he was legally justified in using necessary force once he felt his life was in danger. The judge saw it this way, the jury saw it this way, the prosecution called more than a few witness who saw it this way and most importantly, the majority of Americans agree with the decision. Keep hammering away at the Masons if you care to but it will only bring you down some rabbit hole leading nowhere. A number of things about this controversy
#11. To: GreyLmist, Jethro Tull (#8)
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. 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.
#12. To: scrapper2 (#11)
The righteousness of both the shooting and of the verdict are beyond further discussion.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#13. To: All (#12)
Ignore thread.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#14. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
With this opening comment you stumble straight into the Land of Crackpottery P.S. I actually agree that staged Ops are like from the Land of Crackpots who deviously orchestrate them. Noticing evidence that points to stagings doesn't make someone a stumbling Crackpot, imo, or a Crackpot of some sort at all merely for mentioning the possibility of an Op. If you don't want to go there, that's understandable but quite another thing along the lines of Crackpottery to auto-pigeonhole the observations of others as such without so much as a fair hearing about it first. Although I suspect this to be a Masonic-linked Op to stir up racial conflict
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#15. To: GreyLmist (#14)
For you to suggest that what happened in Sanford was a staged op by the Masons is pure insanity. I wish I could say that in a kinder, gentler way, but brutal honesty has been known to help some. P.S. I actually agree that staged Ops are like from the Land of Crackpots who deviously orchestrate them. Noticing evidence that points to stagings doesn't make someone a stumbling Crackpot, imo, or a Crackpot of some sort at all merely for mentioning the possibility of an Op. If you don't want to go there, that's understandable but quite another thing along the lines of Crackpottery to auto-pigeonhole the observations of others as such without so much as a fair hearing about it first.
#16. To: scrapper2 (#11)
Good's testimony blew me away. I'd love to know what the prosecution was thinking when they put him up there. He made a wonderful witness for the defense. After watching the entire trial (I know, I have no life) I honestly thought O'Mara could have rested w/o calling anyone. 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.
#17. To: GreyLmist (#2)
No, not just his word. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own FACTS. And the facts are pretty clear from the eyewitness testimony - Trayvon Martin was on top and beating George Zimmerman's head into the ground. Trayvon Martin was a violent and out of control young man who suffered from piss-poor parenting. It is unfortunate that Mr. Zimmerman was forced to shoot him in self defense, but the facts are clear that IT was self defense. 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.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
What better witness could the defense have had, if they could have chosen anyone at all, than the states "star witness," Rachel Jeantel? Good's testimony blew me away. I'd love to know what the prosecution was thinking when they put him up there. He made a wonderful witness for the defense.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#19. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
Bingo JD, in fact I can't think of one prosecution witness that hurt Zimmerman's consistent recantation at all.
#20. To: scrapper2 (#11)
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.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#21. To: GreyLmist, scrapper2, all (#20)
You are making an assumption that is not in evidence. While your speculation could, possibly, maybe be true there is no evidence to support that assumption. You are trying to read into the events your preferred spin on them. 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.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#22. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
lol! i wouldnt put such things past the masons. ive read several books on them & for ex., documents from the US library of congress alone outlining the masons admitted schemes would shock you. See BEHIND THE LODGE DOOR, PAUL FSHER. straaight into the Land of Crackpottery
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
#23. To: Jethro Tull (#15)
oh, i thought Grey was saying that this op-ed article may be a masonic plot, not the shooting incident itself. There is indeed a judeo masonic conspiracy/plot in many regards.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
#24. To: Original_Intent (#17) (Edited)
And the facts are pretty clear from the eyewitness testimony - Trayvon Martin was on top and beating George Zimmerman's head into the ground. Trayvon Martin was a violent and out of control young man who suffered from piss-poor parenting. It is unfortunate that Mr. Zimmerman was forced to shoot him in self defense, but the facts are clear that IT was self defense. The fact of the matter is that there's only Zimmerman's word that Martin started the fight and no other witnesses at that point. You have a different opinion but it's not factually verifiable. Zimmerman himself didn't claim in his reenactment video that he shot Martin in self-defense. Reference here. He claimed that he didn't know he had shot him and that is another fact. There's probably more, I think, to the issues of self defense than whoever happens to be armed at the point of their losing a fight but doubt it can be debated peacefully enough in this issue to pursue that further. Edited for spelling. No, not just his word. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own FACTS.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#25. To: Artisan (#23)
Thanks for your input and info on the possible Masonic-linked Op aspect, Artisan.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#26. To: GreyLmist (#20)
I think it'd be the height of stupidity for one slightly out of shape guy to start a scrap with a healthy 17 year old male with a pistol in the older guy's belt. One good punch from the kid and he could be out of it and be disarmed. Then what? Not a likely scenario. The issue was who struck first.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#27. To: Jethro Tull (#15)
I think they might have had some involvement, not that it's exclusively a Masonic Op. I'm even willing to consider to some extent that they might have been framed with evidence pointing to them but you apparently aren't willing to review any of that evidence -- just render callous judgements about me. I don't think brutal honesty would help you to be more receptive and balanced so am moving on... For you to suggest that what happened in Sanford was a staged op by the Masons is pure insanity. I wish I could say that in a kinder, gentler way, but brutal honesty has been known to help some.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#28. To: randge (#26) (Edited)
I think it'd be the height of stupidity for one slightly out of shape guy to start a scrap with a healthy 17 year old male with a pistol in the older guy's belt. One good punch from the kid and he could be out of it and be disarmed. Then what? Not a likely scenario. Good points. Consider, too, that Zimmerman said he didn't know the names of the streets he'd been in charge of patrolling for months and, evidently, didn't think carefully enough to have a map handy with those names in case he had to call the police in an emergency, which he reportedly did but couldn't give them directions except vaguely and that could have delayed them from arriving in time to prevent the shooting before it happened. On the issues of how stupid he is or not and whether he was intentionally vague to slow them down because of vigilante motives, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on that for now and go with a lesser charge of extremely stupid. Edited last sentence and to include the quoted section. The issue was who struck first.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#29. To: GreyLmist (#2)
I dare you to call up the state prosecutor's office in Florida and tell them that they need to look into this, then count the milliseconds until the phone is slammed down in your ear. Nobody will buy what you're selling, including lawyers/prosecutor's/police/judges/news reporters/etc. Although I suspect this to be a Masonic-linked Op to stir up racial conflict
-Alex Kurtagic
#30. To: GreyLmist (#20)
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. The issue was who struck first
#31. To: Original_Intent (#21)
You are making an assumption that is not in evidence. While your speculation could, possibly, maybe be true there is no evidence to support that assumption. You are trying to read into the events your preferred spin on them. The difference is that I am fully aware that it hasn't been proven who started the fight. The assumption of preferred spin that's repeatedly being made in this case and adamantly read as if factual evidence (when there is no supporting corroboration at all for Zimmerman's claim that he was aggressively struck first) is that Trayvon started the fight. If an agreement could be reached that we can't know for sure who started the fight just by Zimmerman's say so, that would be my current preference. I don't understand why that's been so much like an implacable sticking-point of contention despite the facts in evidence which indicate exactly that "Uncertainty Principle". How critical is it to the narrative for you and others that Trayvon be declared the aggressive initiator of the fight rather than Aggressor Unknown? 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.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#32. To: GreyLmist (#31)
Even Trayvon's girl friend, Jeantel, said she believed Trayvon struck first. Jeantel was not an eye witness but she was the one who Trayvn called and talked to through the course of "the event." Check "The Google." I think the major problem with assigning blame to a cult/oligarchy/outside secret society for every violent event that takes place is summed up in a childhood parable about the consequences of crying wolf. You can become your own worst enemy by reading a deus ex machina into tragedies too often.
#33. To: X-15 (#29)
I dare you to call up the state prosecutor's office in Florida and tell them that they need to look into this, then count the milliseconds until the phone is slammed down in your ear. Nobody will buy what you're selling, including lawyers/prosecutor's/police/judges/news reporters/etc. I presume this means I've been parolled from your bozo filter over the Rigby issue, at least temporarily. Yaay. I'd only be surprised if they didn't act as if they can't be bothered about it and there's no such thing as staged Ops or Masonic shenanigans. I could have left the phrase "Masonic-linked" out of my initial statement here and just said that I suspected this to be a staged Op to some extent. I posted on those aspects in a different topic and I didn't mention that here to make it a focal point in this discussion -- just to indicate upfront that I'm not debating these issues because I'm entirely convinced too that it happened, although I'm not 100% convinced either that it didn't. Whether it did or not, the regressive impact on Americans and America has been basically the same. That's my main concern at this point in trying to address what I think is misleading, inaccurate and overly intensive or under inspected about the matter. When discussing things like someone did this or that in the context of a report/scenario/narrative/storyline that I think could be fictional to some degree, I'd rather it be understood that is where I'm at on this -- even though it would probably have been more convenient for me to say nothing or be vaguer about my Op suspicions. Although I suspect this to be a Masonic-linked Op to stir up racial conflict
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#34. To: scrapper2 (#32)
Jeantel was not an eye witness but she was the one who Trayvn called and talked to through the course of "the event." Check "The Google." I think the major problem with assigning blame to a cult/oligarchy/outside secret society for every violent event that takes place is summed up in a childhood parable about the consequences of crying wolf. You can become your own worst enemy by reading a deus ex machina into tragedies too often. People tend to believe that her testimony is credible when they want to and not when they don't. I understand that the rest of what you're saying is the "conventional wisdom" on the subject of staged Ops, thanks. I don't assign every violent event to a cult/oligarchy/outside secret society. This is one of the times that I think the evidence pointed very obviously in the direction of a Masonic connection somehow. Trayvon's father is even reportedly a Master Mason himself. Debating and presenting what I suspect to be Op evidence that most others don't and seeing it that way more often than seems reasonable to many -- or differently than they do -- surely has been problematic for me and isolating to the detriment, maybe, of other issues of importance to more than me. I do what I can to discuss other issues without a stigmatism over Op topics skewing people's opinions but try to look at it from the vantage point of Op stagers and shadowy secret societies and such. You're effectively signaling to them that the more Op evidence there is (beyond a "standard" limit) that they're moving deceptively and damagingly against us, the more apt they are to get a pass as Non-Suspects from those thinking like you and the less people like me will be believed who happen to notice evidence of more than a few Op stagings, past and present. Sort of a win-win situation for them that penalizes investigative researchers without a sound basis to do so, really, imo -- like it's mostly about Surplus Supply and Demand or something and not facts in evidence that indicate Op complicity. Sheesh. That gave me pause to think about all the funner things there are to do than this. Decided to stay on-task here instead. Even Trayvon's girl friend, Jeantel, said she believed Trayvon struck first.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#35. To: Jethro Tull (#30)
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? 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.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#36. To: GreyLmist (#35)
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. 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.
#37. To: James Deffenbach (#3) (Edited)
I actually do think, if it happened, that it largely happened the way Zimmerman said it did in his reenactment video -- except details, for example, like his claim that he was struck first by Martin, which is unverifiable and not a critical issue anyway, afaik, on the question of self defense. I don't think I'm being an apologist for Martin by saying that the way Zimmerman said it happened [in that video] doesn't sound very exonerating or like self defense to me. I think if people listened attentively to his statements [there], they might not be so quick to insist this is a simple matter of self defense. What do you think, though, about the issue of Open Carry for Neighborhood Watch patrollers being a better safety measure than Concealed Carry? I'm currently of the opinion that Open Carry would be the better option to deter others from getting shot by surprise during a fight they thought to be unarmed. Edited for bracketed inserts. the available evidence shows that it happened the way Zimmerman said it did, not the way the apologists for Martin said.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#38. To: GreyLmist (#37)
Several years ago a black gang tortured a couple for hours in an apartment and killed them. A week after the incident in Sanford which we’re discussing here just blocks from Zimmerman’s house two “Black Hebrews” beat a white man, Mark Slavin, near to death with a hammer and stole his van. (This case is so heavily under wraps BTW that you can’t find a news story about it under a year old. The Zimmerman judge is handling the case of one of the perps.) More recently, a black 17 year old shot a toddler in a stroller to between the eyes because his mother couldn’t fork up any cash in a robbery. Half the perp’s family is in jail because they backed up a fake alibi or helped destroy evidence. Point here is that there have been some shocking stories the past couple of years that went completely under the radar. They didn’t receive a fraction of the attention that the Zimmerman case did. It was all “ . . . and then the big bad WHITE MAN killed the handsome, sweet, innocent colored boy.” This case was tailor made to be spun the way some in the media wanted because crucial parts of the events took place under four eyes (two of them no longer with us) and the conventional press ran with its version of the shooting. Here’s the conspiracy, GreyLmist: This a case that many white folks terrified by urban crime see as a case of self-defence, while a large proportion of blacks look at this shooting as a racist attack, and it’s inflamed their ready sense of racial paranoia. IMHO, this case, in the way that it was portrayed by the press, was promoted to divide people and ignite enmity and hatred. WHO DECIDED THAT THIS SHOOTING WAS PAGE ONE NEWS?? Someone (more than one person) made that decision. There’s your effin’ conspiracy.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#39. To: GreyLmist (#37)
Personally, open carry is fine with me. I think everyone has the right to bear arms unless there is something in their background that would disqualify them (like being provably dangerous to other people). And whether they carry concealed or openly would make no difference to me. Your assumption should always be that if you are thinking about starting $#it with someone, or maybe putting a beat down on some "creepy ass cracker" that said "creepy ass cracker" might blow you away with the gun he is carrying. Civilized people don't go around sucker punching other people like Saint Skittles did. What do you think, though, about the issue of Open Carry for Neighborhood Watch patrollers being a better safety measure than Concealed Carry? I'm currently of the opinion that Open Carry would be the better option to deter others from getting shot by surprise during a fight they thought to be unarmed.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#40. To: James Deffenbach (#39)
Especially in Florida where gun ownership is quite high, no? putting a beat down on some "creepy ass cracker" that said "creepy ass cracker" might blow you away with the gun he is carrying.
#41. To: randge (#38)
Excellent observation. Black teens and children get murdered every day in America ( typically at the hand of other Blacks). But with how many of them has the President personally and publicly identified? Only one - Obama said at a presser that Trayvon looked like he could have been his son. The trial was happening at a time when Obama and his Administration were under the gun regarding a number of scandals - Benghazi, the IRS, phone tapping of the press, the NSA's domestic snooping, Obamacare costs, etc etc.... The Dem Rats needed a story on the Front Pages of newspapers and Google that was not a scandal about Obama and Company. WHO DECIDED THAT THIS SHOOTING WAS PAGE ONE NEWS?? Someone (more than one person) made that decision. There’s your effin’ conspiracy.
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 237) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest