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: 1916
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.
#42. To: scrapper2 (#40)
I believe it is. And where gun ownership is high the crime rate is low. And if the idiots who push gun control would use their heads they would know that if guns were inherently dangerous in and of themselves--which is what they seem to think--no one would ever leave a gun show alive. Especially in Florida where gun ownership is quite high, no?
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
#43. To: randge, 4 (#38)
Who decided TM was page one news worthy? The same folks who buried this, and stories like this, with regularity.
#44. To: Jethro Tull (#43)
The reverend "begs to differ" and they drag in the hoary swastika. 'Bout what you'd expect & you can expect no less in this sclerotic republic of moral paralytics.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#45. To: Jethro Tull (#43)
This story has been posted on my fridge for 5 years to remind myself and others of the need for eternal vigilance. Even without the mutilations the crime was much more horrific than portrayed in that video.
“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele
“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb
“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
#46. To: GreyLmist (#34)
1. Regarding your claim about Jeantel's testimony being presented as Truth only when it's a convenient to do so... if I'm not mistaken, Jeantel volunteered this information in a talk show interview AFTER the verdict in the trial was announced. She was not on the stand anymore. She was not presenting a phony story that the Prosecution had scripted and coached her to say. After the trial was done, Jeantel had nothing to gain or lose with her admission about Trayvon throwing the first punch. For this reason, I find her post-trial remarks about Trayvon throwing the "first punch" believable. 2.You don't always interject Staged Ops into discussions about violent events in the news. That is true. But because you have done it and continue to do it in such a frequent and predictable manner, it seems like you always do it more often than not. 3. Re: your comment: "Trayvon's father is even reportedly a Master Mason himself" - yes, Tracy Martin is a Grand Master in District #006. www.renfordpbrowngl.org/district_006.html That incidental fact does not make the Zimmerman-Trayvon shooting tragedy a Masonic Staged Op. One of my physicians is a Mason. My brother-in-law is a Knight of Columbus. Fyi, there's hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of Masons and KOC's in America. So what? 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.
#47. To: GreyLmist (#2) (Edited)
Right on cue. How am I not surprised by the stance you've chosen to take. 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.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#48. To: scrapper2 (#40)
Years ago Florida did not have CC and had the highest murder rate in the country,not anymore. Especially in Florida where gun ownership is quite high, no?
“Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele
“The jew cries out in pain, as he strikes you.”–Polish proverb
“I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
#49. To: randge, GreyLmist (#38)
Exactly, and to be blind to that indicates someone isn't looking very clearly. WHO DECIDED THAT THIS SHOOTING WAS PAGE ONE NEWS?? Someone (more than one person) made that decision. There’s your effin’ conspiracy.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#50. To: Jethro Tull, randge, 4 (#43)
In the case you refer to, the guy was gang raped prison style in front of his girlfriend, then they cut off his penis, set him on fire outside, then shot him. As far as the girlfriend, they gang raped her for two DAYS, then cut her breasts off, poured bleach down her mouth (while still ALIVE and CONSCIOUS), and ended up stuffing her into a trash can to let her die slowly. And as you say, this never made front page news. Who decided TM was page one news worthy? The same folks who buried this, and stories like this, with regularity.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#51. To: scrapper2 (#46)
Indeed. Whether Tracy Martin is actually a Grand Master Mason or not, I find it difficult to believe that he could have staged an event like this which began with the random act of a teenager purchasing an Arizona fruit drink & a bag of Skittles. So what?
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#52. To: scrapper2, GreyLmist (#46)
yes, Tracy Martin is a Grand Master in District #006. He's a Prince Hall 'mason', not a real Mason. Huge difference. Masons won't let Prince Hall 'masons' enter their lodge. It's the last corner of America that Whites are allowed to openly discriminate against negro's without one word of protest from the MSM. I'm not a Mason, btw. Trayvon's father is even reportedly a Master Mason himself.
-Alex Kurtagic
#53. To: GreyLmist (#2)
How long had Zimmerman been living in that area? Normally when one is appointed to patrol an area, they are not only fully familiar with their area (including their neighbors) but most of the neighbors also participate in neighborhood watch whether they live in apartment domiciles or own their homes. Another thing that bothers me is this: The moment that Zimmerman got out of his car was the moment he opened himself up to personal danger. Normally, when a resident is patrolling their neighborhood and they see suspicious activity, even if they are armed, they DO NOT EVER get out of their car. They call the cops. And even cops knows this when they see suspicious activity, they do not even get out of their car. Instead, they assess the situation to see of possible danger and then they follow the suspect in the car (not on foot). And I'm all for open carry! 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.
#54. To: GreyLmist (#8)
How unfortunate that you can't appeal Zimmerman's exoneration and try him again with facts more to your liking, but that would be double jeopardy and is forbidden. Your twisting of the evidence is the best example of why the founders erected a constitutional bar to it.
#55. To: purplerose (#53)
I think you just indirectly called Saint Skittles a dangerous criminal?? Zimmerman had every right to get out of his vehicle in HIS neighborhood. It was NOT Saint Skittles neighborhood. The moment that Zimmerman got out of his car was the moment he opened himself up to personal danger.
-Alex Kurtagic
#56. To: GreyLmist (#37)
Of all the retired and off duty LEOs I know, 100% carry their weapons concealed. Way too many reasons to mention why this is, but safety would be at the top of the list. 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.
#57. To: GreyLmist, jethro tull (#25)
youre welcome. Paul fisher was a congressional aide & had access to endless documents. His book & bibligraphy is amazing.military docunmets, govt reports ad infinitum. Its a must read for anyone wanting cold hard FACTS about masons.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
#58. To: X-15 (#55)
On the day Martin was fatally shot, he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at her townhome in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, a multi-ethnic gated community, where the shooting occurred. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin Zimmerman and his wife had moved into the Retreat at Twin Lakes in 2009. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin Trayvon had just as every much right to be in that Retreat neighborhood just as Zimmerman. Trayvon had family there. It was NOT Saint Skittles neighborhood.
#59. To: purplerose (#58)
Ouch! My head hurts trying to assimilate all those New Age ex and step family connections plus the ACLU au courant watch words like "multi-ethnic"juxtaposed to "gated" etc etc etc. Not to get picky but I think you forgot to mention the DOJ touch stone phrase: "multi-racial." Spit it out, purple rose, don't keep us hanging in suspense pulling our hair out while going through your legalese word maze - tah dah! - Trayvon was a "guest" of a homeowner @ The Retreat. he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at her townhome in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, a multi-ethnic gated community,
#60. To: scrapper2 (#59)
abcnews.go.com: Jeantel said she told Martin to run but that he responded that he was almost home. Trayvon was a "guest" of a homeowner @ The Retreat.
-------
"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
#61. To: GreyLmist, scrapper2, normal people (#60)
His home was with his mother in Miami, he was staying with his father at his girlfriend's place at The Retreat. He had been there app. two weeks after having been suspended from school for fighting, and other assorted ghetto behavior.
#62. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
Can Anyone Verify These Disturbing Allegations About Trayvon’s Family? Posted on | July 15, 2013 | 304 Comments and 0 Reactions A commenter on the earlier post wrote this: Here’s something else you don’t know. From the age of 3 until age 15 or 16, Trayvon Martin lived NOT with Sybrina Fulton but with Tracy Martin, a known member of the Crips, and his then-wife Alicia Stanley-Martin, who was mentioned above. Alicia Stanley-Martin in that interview with Anderson Cooper said Trayvon spent 90% of his life in her home being raised with her two daughters from a previous relationship. When Tracy Martin dumped Alicia for Brandy he sent Trayvon to live with Sybrina — a woman he hardly knew. The two didn’t get along at all. Sybrina kicked Trayvon out two days before he jumped Zimmerman. Oddly, at that point Tracy was living with his sister because he’d dumped Alicia but hadn’t yet convinced Brandy to let him shack up with her and her son Chad. According to Trayvon’s text messages the plan was for him and Tracy to move in with Brandy soon but there was no definite date. So Sybrina kicked Trayvon out knowing that Tracy had no home of his own, meaning Trayvon had no home to go to other than his aunt’s house where his father was staying. Mother-of-the-year award material. The part that gets me, however, is that Sybrina would let a known member of the Crips to raise her child from age three. I’m sorry but that’s too messed up for words. You ought to check out Trayvon’s text messages, the released ones anyway. All evidence points to Tracy initiating Trayvon into the Crips, including purchasing illegal guns on the street. Yes, you read that correctly. The text messages may be found at the website created and ran by Mark O’Mara. Look at the ten text message reports. Oh, and Tracy Martin’s Crip nickname is “Fruit.” http://theothermccain.com/2013/07/15/can-anyone-verify-these-disturbing- allegations-about-trayvons-family/
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#63. To: randge (#62)
There you go, all one needs to know about angelic Trayvon Martin. Sleep well, young Trayvon. Your crime spree is over.
#64. To: Jethro Tull (#36)
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 caseMe: 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.
-------
"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
#65. To: GreyLmist (#64)
ZIMMERMAN: I didn’t think I hit him, yes. If you can construe this to mean Z fired accidentally, you are seriously ill. 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?
#66. To: GreyLmist (#64)
Odd? Really? Would you give the police five interviews w/o representation and then take the stand against the advice of your attorney? A yes or no answer please. Odd how he gave so many lawyer free interviews to the police and on TV too but didn't want to testify in court.
#67. To: randge (#62)
wow, but Zimmerman had no reason whatsoever to be suspicious of Trayvon's behavior that night....again, defenders are making excuses for him, but his purchasing of two ingredients needed to make LEAN is an indictment to me.
#68. To: All (#66)
O'Mara was with Z for the Hannity interview. Odd how he gave so many lawyer free interviews to the police and on TV too
#69. To: All, WATCH (#67)
#70. To: purplerose (#53)
He was on the phone with the cops when he got out of the car to provide details as to where Martin had run. Why was Martin running? Why didn't he just run home like his buddy told him to do? If Martin felt so much threat why wasn't he on the phone with the cops instead of Zimmerman? They call the cops.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#71. To: All, Here is your conspiracy (#68)
#72. To: GreyLmist (#2)
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 If he was on his own porch why the hell didn't he just go inside? Why do you make excuses for his running off the porch to confront and assault Zimmerman if this is what you believe to be true? Yes, open carry may have prevented Trayvon from assaulting an armed man. Yes, Trayvon would not have then been surprised to find he assaulted an armed man. was on the porch at his own home before the confrontation with Zimmerman
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#73. To: Jethro Tull (#71)
that's all we need to know.
#74. To: GreyLmist (#2)
There are no witnesses that Zimmerman was aggressively struck first in the scenario -- just his word We aren't to the point yet that there is a camera or a drone videotaping our every move, but it seems to me you'd be an advocate for such a system, if only to capture events like this, beginning to end. 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 Wrong. TM reached his condo and rather than go in, disappeared for four minutes before approaching Z at the "T" section of the development.
#75. To: Jethro Tull (#66)
A yes or no answer please. Q: Would you give the police five interviews w/o representation A: No Why do you suppose he gave so many interviews w/o representation? Wanted his case tried in the court of public opinion because he thought that would be a good thing for the country? Good for him? I think his attorney(s) would have advised him not to take the stand even if he hadn't given any interviews because he contradicts himself, among the many other incredulities about this. They might have had to work harder for their fees then...and the public might have questioned whuzzup with all that?...and then they might have stopped bickering enough to give it more scrutiny...and, well, you get the gist -- yes? Odd? Really? Would you give the police five interviews w/o representation and then take the stand against the advice of your attorney?
-------
"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
#76. To: GreyLmist (#75)
The gist is that when your attorney advises you NOT TO TAKE THE STAND, you do what your attorney advises. End of story. Shit, you really think that Zimmerman wanted his case in the "court of public opinion"? Seriously, that's ridiculous. It was only public emoting that brought the charges and the trial about......because there was never the evidence to support a conviction. This is why we have grand juries, but not in Zimmerman's case because the prosecutor wanted charges based on public emoting. Everybody contradicts themselves to some extent. Have you read your posts? Why do you suppose he gave so many interviews w/o representation? Wanted his case tried in the court of public opinion because he thought that would be a good thing for the country? Good for him? I think his attorney(s) would have advised him not to take the stand even if he hadn't given any interviews because he contradicts himself, among the many other incredulities about this. They might have had to work harder for their fees then...and the public might have questioned whuzzup with all that?...and then they might have stopped bickering enough to give it more scrutiny...and, well, you get the gist -- yes?
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#77. To: GreyLmist (#75)
A: No Well then, if you also wouldn't take the stand, or do the unrepresented interviews, why call Z's decision odd? You realize O'Mara was w/Z on Hannity, right? You'd have to ask Zimmerman why he did it, and while you're at it, ask the countless millions of other Americans who surrender their Fifth Amendment rights and do the exact same thing daily. Q: Would you give the police five interviews w/o representation
#78. To: purplerose (#58)
Not his neighborhood, he was visiting. On the day Martin was fatally shot, he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at **her townhome** in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford
-Alex Kurtagic
#79. To: abraxas (#70)
Why didn't Zimmerman know the names of the streets he'd been in charge of patrolling for six months when he had lived in that neighborhood for years since 2009? Why didn't Zimmerman simply identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watch patrol? It didn't matter if Martin was walking or running, according to Zimmerman himself in his statements. Martin was suspicious at first because he wasn't walking fast enough to get out of the rain and he was still suspicious for running to get out of the rain and away from being followed. Then Zimmerman changed the story in his Hannity interview to Not running - more like skipping/going quickly but not in fear. Even Hannity thought that didn't sound right and reminded him of his earlier version. He was on the phone with the cops when he got out of the car to provide details as to where Martin had run. Why was Martin running? Why didn't he just run home like his buddy told him to do? If Martin felt so much threat why wasn't he on the phone with the cops instead of Zimmerman?
-------
"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
#80. To: GreyLmist (#79)
He patrolled his neighborhood for six months, eh? Please tell us what a typical day on patrol was like for Zimmerman. Also explain how you reached this conclusion. Why didn't Zimmerman know the names of the streets he'd been in charge of patrolling for six months when he had lived in that neighborhood for years since 2009?
#81. To: christine (#69)
In my mind, there is nothing accidental in the way the details of this case were twisted and spun. "Happy go lucky black kid with a soda and candy accosted by mean white guy with a gun." The "news" purveyors were champing at the bit, ready to roll out the robes & hoods when they found out Zimmerman was "hispanic." Now he coulda been a Kraut and his daddy was with the SS. That would have been a field day. They'd have to hire a drum majorette for the parade. Call in the Office of Special Investigations.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#82. To: GreyLmist (#79)
Perhaps he isn't good with street names. Is that so difficult to believe? Hell, I don't remember the names of all the streets in my neighborhood either. Why is recall of street names such an important conspiracy theory aspect? Also it was dark and raining, so he couldn't simply see the street signs. He wanted to give the cop on the phone the correct information...wouldn't you want to do the same? Why didn't Zimmerman know the names of the streets he'd been in charge of patrolling for six months when he had lived in that neighborhood for years since 2009?
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#83. To: X-15 (#78) (Edited)
So if I were black and visiting my family members in an ethnically mixed neighborhood, and I venture over to a convenience store, when it is dark outside, to get some candy and soda, I now have be concerned about being pursued by an armed citizen following me around? Note here: Ethnically mixed also applies to black people too. I've lived in Los Angeles for 22 years and I have lived with Iranians/Iraqs, Israelians, Lebanese, Syrians, Asians, Blacks and Mexicans. I learned how to live peacefully with them all. This thing about "Not his neighborhood, he was visiting" is a misnomer of speech.
#84. To: purplerose (#83) (Edited)
No, I stated fact. It matters not, Saint Trayvon is no longer a junior thug and he won't be stealing jewelry or waving around pistols to show his "street cred". This thing about "Not his neighborhood, he was visiting" is a misnomer of speech.
-Alex Kurtagic
#85. To: purplerose (#83)
Do you want a medal? I don't see the relevance of inserting your personal experience in LA to the case under discussion. Unless you are suggesting that Zimmerman is trouble seeking racist, who did not "learn to live peacefully" in an "ethnically mixed neighborhood" as you have done so admirably. I learned how to live peacefully with them all.
#86. To: Jethro Tull (#77)
A: No Well then, if you also wouldn't take the stand, or do the unrepresented interviews, why call Z's decision odd? I'm not going to be able to catch up on this thread today and keep up if I have to split hairs too and unjumble stuff like that. I'm not even seeing how one thing follows the other in your question. I said, "No" - I would not give the police five interviews w/o representation. I didn't say anything about not taking the stand. I call Z's decision odd because that's just the kind of a hairpin I am, see? That was a James Cagney impression, in case you didn't know. Yes. I'm just going to reword my sentence here with a bracketed insert for correctness: Odd how he gave so many lawyer free interviews to the police and [even went] on TV too but didn't want to testify in court. I'm one person. That's more busywork than I can manage even if I took him off the list. Mark Dice might do it. He likes to roam around and ask the public questions. Q: Would you give the police five interviews w/o representation
You realize O'Mara was w/Z on Hannity, right?
You'd have to ask Zimmerman why he did it, and while you're at it, ask the countless millions of other Americans who surrender their Fifth Amendment rights and do the exact same thing daily.
-------
"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
#87. To: GreyLmist (#86)
So you would take the stand against the advice of your attorney? Yes or no please. I didn't say anything about not taking the stand.
#88. To: GreyLmist (#86)
When you have a father who is a retired judge and possibly giving you advice to plead the fifth in court, as well as pull some strings for you, then you're home free. Odd how he gave so many lawyer free interviews to the police and [even went] on TV too but didn't want to testify in court.
#89. To: abraxas (#72) (Edited)
Yes, open carry may have prevented Trayvon from assaulting an armed man. Yes, Trayvon would not have then been surprised to find he assaulted an armed man. His father wasn't there at the time. Maybe he was trying to act like a protector of the home by keeping a lookout in case Zimmerman was a dangerous stalker. What excuses? It's just a fact that he committed no crime that night to be pursued. There simply is no evidence except Zimmerman's word that he was assaulted by Martin. Edited for spelling. If he was on his own porch why the hell didn't he just go inside? Why do you make excuses for his running off the porch to confront and assault Zimmerman if this is what you believe to be true?
-------
"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
#90. To: GreyLmist (#89)
It's just a fact that he committed no crime that night to be pursued. 1) You protect the home IN THE HOME, not by running out and assaulting "creepy ass crackas" on the street. 2) There is no evidence to support the "stalking" charge, this is more emoting. Neighborhood watch folks watch the neighborhood, this is why they are referred to as neighborhood watch. No, it isn't a fact as you claim. The evidence supports and substantiates the claim that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. Assault of "creepy ass cracka" is a crime. Maybe he was trying to act like a protector of the home by keeping a lookout in case Zimmerman was a dangerous stalker.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#91. To: purplerose (#88)
Oy Vey. The grasping at straws (aka the hail Mary pass) rebuttal when losing a debate. When you have a father who is a retired judge and possibly giving you advice to plead the fifth in court, as well as pull some strings for you, then you're home free.
#92. To: GreyLmist (#89)
It's just a fact that he committed no crime that night to be pursued. And you could also say that Zimmerman committed no crime that night in surveilling Martin, which is what Zimmerman contends he was doing and which BTW he had every right to do. There simply is no evidence except Zimmerman's word that he was assulted by Martin. That statement is patently and demonstrably false. The evidence presented at trial that Zimmerman assaulted by Martin is in great degree responsible for Zimmerman's acquittal. Lord, I don't know why you try so hard, GreyLmist, but you do make some folks here do their homework. The more homework they do, the worse it looks for Martin's actions and reputation.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#93. To: Jethro Tull (#87)
Yes or no please. Maybe. So you would take the stand against the advice of your attorney?
-------
"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
#94. To: GreyLmist (#93)
So, your rationale for not speaking to the police regarding a shooting investigation, but then taking the stand on a murder 2 charge, against the advice of your attorneys, would be what? Maybe.
#95. To: abraxas (#90)
Which is exactly the point that opponents of "stand your ground" have been trying to make. 1) You protect the home IN THE HOME, not by running out and assaulting "creepy ass crackas" on the street.
#96. To: strepsiptera (#95)
Stand your ground WAS NOT a defense in this case. This case was determined strictly on self defense and the evidence supported the acquittal. Why do you keep harping about Stand Your Ground when it isn't even pertinent to this case? When Stand Your Ground isn't relevant to the case, your point is MOOT! Which is exactly the point that opponents of "stand your ground" have been trying to make.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#97. To: strepsiptera (#95)
The bug is back!
#98. To: GreyLmist, Jethro Tull (#64)
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. 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.
#99. To: abraxas (#96)
We are many. We are mighty. And we vote. Respectfully and with heartfelt sadness. Glenda Wells Gun Rights Across America, Florida State Coordinator "We have no duty to retreat" is an explicit reference to stand your ground. Stand your ground eliminates duty to retreat and extends the castle defense to wherever you may happen to be on the planet. You pretty much stated in your own post that you think that Trayvon had a duty to retreat. That can be a legitimate argument but it is a rejection of stand your ground. If stand your ground is irrelevant, then why is Glenda Wells bringing it up in her open letter to Trayvon's parents? We have no duty to retreat. We will not run and hide.
#100. To: scrapper2 (#98)
The photo you are talking about was one year out of date, which would make him 16, not 12.
#101. To: scrapper2 (#46)
In that interview, Rachel Jeantel says that she thinks Trayvon threw a punch in response to Z grabbing him. If Jeantel's theory were correct, that would still make Z guilty of assault and Trayvon's punch would be thrown in self defense.
#102. To: scrapper2, GreyLmist (#98)
GreyLmist is the only person I know that connected the word accidental to the shooting. No proof has been offered because none exists.
#103. To: randge, All (#92)
randge: That statement is patently and demonstrably false. The evidence presented at trial that Zimmerman assaulted by Martin is in great degree responsible for Zimmerman's acquittal. Lord, I don't know why you try so hard, GreyLmist, but you do make some folks here do their homework. The more homework they do, the worse it looks for Martin's actions and reputation. People claiming to have seen a fight in process with Trayvon hitting Zimmerman at the time is not the same thing as evidence that the fight was started by Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman. I think people haven't done enough homework if we can't at least agree about that much without a ruckus. So, here's a study-link to my TM-GZ Evidence Archive, currently for Me: There simply is no evidence except Zimmerman's word that he was assulted by Martin.
Grades Posts 1-12. :) Btw, The Martin Family and Associates didn't get a free pass from me either there.
-------
"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
#104. To: strepsiptera (#101)
Absurd and inadmissible in any court of law. What Rachel Jeantel *thinks* is of no consequence and has no traction beyond giving Nancy Grace another orgasm when she shrieks "Breaking Development!!". Rachel Jeantel says that *she thinks* Trayvon threw a punch in response to Z grabbing him. If *Jeantel's theory* were correct
-Alex Kurtagic
#105. To: strepsiptera, 4 (#101)
Let's take your unsupported example as true. Z instigates the fight. TM gets to use necessary force to stop the assault. According to John Good, a neighbor who witnessed the assault from 20' away, and Zimmerman, TM pinned Zimmerman on the ground and pummeled him MMA style, while causing his head to repeatedly strike the cement walkway. This removes TMs actions from the realm of self-defense into deadly physical force, a force which can be terminated by equal force. If Jeantel's theory were correct, that would still make Z guilty of assault and Trayvon's punch would be thrown in self defense.
#106. To: GreyLmist (#103)
Saint Skittles had a track-record of physical violence, George Zimmerman has a track-record of helping people and NO record of physical violence. People claiming to have seen a fight in process with Trayvon hitting Zimmerman at the time is not the same thing as evidence that the fight was started by Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman.
-Alex Kurtagic
#107. To: X-15 (#104)
Then any speculation on her part that Trayvon threw the first punch is equally inadmissable. She is only a witness to what she heard on the phone; nothing more.
#108. To: strepsiptera (#107)
But of course, she wasn't there and only heard some noise on a cell-phone. Her total involvement in George Zimmerman's trial was a farce, at most she was only a character-witness for Crayon's budding 'thug-fo-lyfe' lifestyle.
-Alex Kurtagic
#109. To: X-15 (#106)
Z had a record of being arrested for assaulting a police officer. He also had a restraining order issued against him after being accused of domestic violence by his fiancee.
#110. To: strepsiptera (#109)
By golly you're right, that slipped my mind. I stand corrected.
-Alex Kurtagic
#111. To: strepsiptera (#100)
Reading comprehension issues? Here's what I stated: "while Trayvon's photos showed a young 12 year old looking little "kid."" I did not say it was a photo of Trayvon at age 12. The photo you are talking about was one year out of date, which would make him 16, not 12.
#112. To: strepsiptera (#109)
Sorry, but "being arrested" and "being accused" does not = being found guilty as charged/as accused. Please provide the url links to the legal decisions that determined Zimmerman was guilty as charged/as accused. Z had a record of being arrested for assaulting a police officer. He also had a restraining order issued against him after being accused of domestic violence by his fiancee.
#113. To: strepsiptera (#109) (Edited)
BS. If he were arrested for assaulting a police officer he never would have been a gun owner or issued a carry permit. Z was in a bar with a friend and some alcohol enforcement officer snatched said friend w/o showing ID and dragged him outside. Z got between them (the kid was summonsed for under age) and the faux "police officer" did what all know to be true; he arrested Z for obstruction. The charge was tossed at the earliest opportunity. So much for your assault on a PO. And double BS on the domestic violence. He and his g/f took out dueling orders of protection on each other before they broke up. Congratulations, your continued ignorance regarding this matter remains intact. Z had a record of being arrested for assaulting a police officer. He also had a restraining order issued against him after being accused of domestic violence by his fiancee.
#114. To: strepsiptera (#99)
I didn't say anything about duty. An iota of good sense would have kept the angelic youth in his home. Sadly, the angelic youth opted not to go home but rather to find the "creepy ass cracka" and pull out his big can of whoop ass on him. This is substantiated by star witness Jeantel. Assault can get you killed, especially when you opt to assault an armed "creepy ass cracka" and assault is a reason to protect yourself without invoking the Stand Your Ground defense.....which is what happened in this case. You pretty much stated in your own post that you think that Trayvon had a duty to retreat.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#115. To: strepsiptera (#99)
Because Trayvon's parents are on the Al Sharpton crazy bus to abolish Stand Your Ground even though Stand Your Ground had NOTHING to do with this case. If stand your ground is irrelevant, then why is Glenda Wells bringing it up in her open letter to Trayvon's parents?
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#116. To: strepsiptera (#99)
If stand your ground is irrelevant, then why is Glenda Wells bringing it up in her open letter to Trayvon's parents?
#117. To: scrapper2 (#112)
I will do that when you provide links to the legal decisions convicting Trayvon of ANYof the numerous crimes you and others accuse him of. When was Trayvon ever convicted of anything?? Please provide the url links to the legal decisions that determined Zimmerman was guilty as charged/as accused.
#118. To: Jethro Tull (#116)
How's that gun ban working out in Chicago Rahm? How many sitting ducks died last week end in the cross fire?
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#119. To: strepsiptera (#117)
I will do that when you provide links to the legal decisions convicting Trayvon of ANY of the numerous crimes you and others accuse him of. When was Trayvon ever convicted of anything?? Please provide the url links to the legal decisions that determined Zimmerman was guilty as charged/as accused.
#120. To: abraxas (#118)
Ping to #119, A...
#121. To: scrapper2, purplerose (#91)
The grasping at straws (aka the hail Mary pass) rebuttal when losing a debate. That's how it looks. I don't get it with people coming to the defense of Saint Skittles, given the fact that he assaulted someone apparently because he was white (or Hispanic) and most likely would have killed him if Zimmerman had not been armed. Oy Vey.
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
#122. To: All (#120)
So, Tracy Martin, upon learning Trayvon is missing, first calls the juvenile detention center, then the sheriff's office and finally the Sanford PD. I find the pecking order of his calls very interesting.... Tracy Martin's phone call to non-emergency the day AFTER Trayvon went missing. Tracy had Brandy call the juvenile detention center where she is employed to ask if Trayvon had been picked up. He then called the Sheriff's office non-emergency to ask if they had picked Trayvon up. He finally calls SPD to file a missing persons report.www.re-newsit.com/2012/08...ls-to-report-trayvon.html
#123. To: abraxas (#96)
Why do you keep harping about Stand Your Ground when it isn't even pertinent to this case? When Stand Your Ground isn't relevant to the case, your point is MOOT!
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
#124. To: X-15 (#104)
LOL! It would be a "breaking development" if Rachel Jeantel or Nancy Grace actually had a thought. As my friend Twodees used to say, "One of my thoughts would bust their heads wide open!" Absurd and inadmissible in any court of law. What Rachel Jeantel *thinks* is of no consequence and has no traction beyond giving Nancy Grace another orgasm when she shrieks "Breaking Development!!".
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
#125. To: abraxas, scrapper2, James Deffenbach, X-15 (#122)
ping to #122
#126. To: Jethro Tull (#125)
What is it with all these people defending Saint Skittles? Hell, there is no telling how many people's lives George Zimmerman saved when he killed that wannabe thug. Maybe even some of those who are so vociferously defending Saint Skittles.
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
#127. To: Jethro Tull (#125) (Edited)
Lolololol!!!!! Mother already knew the score with her satanic offspring...... So, Tracy Martin, upon learning Trayvon is missing, first calls the juvenile detention center
-Alex Kurtagic
#128. To: X-15 (#127)
A lot better than all these people who are dead set on defending the little thug. Lolololol!!!!! Mother already knew the score with her satanic offspring......
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
#129. To: James Deffenbach (#123)
Lol........I'm not the Jackass whisperer? : )
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#130. To: abraxas (#129)
Nope. And at some point, even though your intentions are good, you have to decide that there is just no help for some folks. They will argue that up is down and black is white all day long and there is no getting through to them.
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
#131. To: abraxas (#129)
Sometimes she's the Smartass Whisperer ;-)
-Alex Kurtagic
#132. To: GreyLmist (#103)
It doesn't matter who started the fight. There is ample evidence that however the tussle developed at some point Martin put Zimmerman in fear of great bodily harm or death. How did Zimmerman get that dislocated nose and all those cuts on the back of his head? You've got to bang someone's head pretty hard to get those kind of cuts contusions. Do you think Zimmerman did it to himself? No one else was observed in the area at the time. It's apparent that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman in a serious way. It's at that point that self-defense kicks in.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#133. To: randge (#132) (Edited)
It most certainly does and especially so when one who actually started the fight did so on foot with a gun! Now, had Trayvon been armed chances are he could have saved his own life. Believe me, were some punk following me on foot with a gun, I'd go crazy on their ass. And I mean it! No fucking joke here at all. It doesn't matter who started the fight.
#134. To: purplerose (#133)
a. Jeantel - after the trial decision - said she believed Trayvon started the fight. b.Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed. There is no evidence that suggests Trayvon had any knowledge of Zimmerman being armed before the shooting took place. Conceal and carry must be a familiar phrase to lawyers, as you insinuate, you are. Or are you the physician persona? I forget. There has been a few faux "professionals" passing thru 4um while Obama/Holder/Big Sis have been at the helm of Titanic America. c. I thought you were the get-along gal who posted a few messages up. "I'd go crazy on their ass" doesn't sound very peace seeking, "I'm ok you're ok" per the persona you presented in message #83: snip "I've lived in Los Angeles for 22 years and I have lived with Iranians/Iraqs, Israelians, Lebanese, Syrians, Asians, Blacks and Mexicans. I learned how to live peacefully with them all. This thing about "Not his neighborhood, he was visiting" is a misnomer of speech. " d. God I hope you're not a gooobment DHS/FBI/facsimile dept "I have no skills or talent so I applied & got hired for a gov't job" plant. Because if so, my taxpayer $ is being seriously mis-spent. It most certainly does and especially so when one who actually started the fight did so on foot with a gun! Now, had Trayvon been armed chances are he could have saved his own life. Believe me, were some punk following me on foot with a gun, I'd go crazy on their ass. And I mean it! No fucking joke here at all.
#135. To: strepsiptera (#117)
I haven't accused Trayvon of numerous crimes. It was you who accused Zimmerman of 2 crimes. Zimmerman is an adult. If he were found guilty of the 2 criminal charges/accusations you mentioned, it would be public record. You'd be able to find these records. Please stay on point, Bug. Psssst - just trying to help you out... If you get shot down, your fall back position is: "When you have a father who is a retired judge and possibly giving you advice to plead the fifth in court, as well as pull some strings for you, then you're home free." I will do that when you provide links to the legal decisions convicting Trayvon of ANYof the numerous crimes you and others accuse him of. When was Trayvon ever convicted of anything??
#136. To: purplerose (#133)
It most certainly does It most certainly does as a civil matter I think. If A and B get into a tussle that A started and there are damages and claims and counterclaims, A might be held more responsible than B. If B escalates the situation however, and presents A with deadly force, A is still within his or her right to self-defense and to respond in kind, notwithstanding how the fight got started. It doesn't matter who started the fight.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#137. To: Jethro Tull (#122)
You are actually proviing my point. How is any of that a conviction? Whare is the court action? Why do you have one standard for accusing Trayvon of things and another for Zimmerman?
#138. To: scrapper2 (#135)
Trayvon has been called a gangster, a thug, a wannabe thug, a criminal, a drug addict, and everything else under the sun on every one of these threads. Where are the legal convictions? Why is throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks O.K. in the case of defaming Martin, but only a conviction is acceptable when it comes to Z?
#139. To: James Deffenbach, scrapper2 (#126)
This is exactlty what I am talking about in my post to scrapper 2 There is no such crime as wanting to be a thug. We don't have a department of precrime. Either he is a thug or he isn't. Show me the convictions. Hell, there is no telling how many people's lives George Zimmerman saved when he killed that wannabe thug.
#140. To: strepsiptera (#137)
What does any of your comment have to do with why Tracy Martin's first call (his g/f called at his request) regarding his missing son was placed to the local juvenile detention center? To the rational, his call shows the first place he thought of when TM was missing x 13 hours. You are actually proviing my point. How is any of that a conviction? Whare is the court action? Why do you have one standard for accusing Trayvon of things and another for Zimmerman?
#141. To: strepsiptera (#139)
The February 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martion might never have happened if school officials in Miami-Dade County had not instituted an unofficial policy of treating crimes as school disciplinary infractions. "http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/trayvon-martins- involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police- prosecutors.html"> Revelations that emerged from an internal affairs investigation explain why Martin was not arrested when caught at school with stolen jewelry in October 2011 or with marijuana in February 2012. Instead, the teenager was suspended from school, the last time just days before he was shot dead by George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin was not from Sanford, the town north of Orlando where he was shot in 2012 and where a jury acquitted Zimmerman of murder charges Saturday. Martin was from Miami Gardens, more than 200 miles away, and had come to Sanford to stay with his father’s girlfriend Brandy Green at her home in the townhouse community where Zimmerman was in charge of the neighborhood watch. Trayvon was staying with Green after he had been suspended for the second time in six months from Krop High School in Miami-Dade County, where both his father, Tracy Martin, and mother, Sybrina Fulton, lived. Both of Trayvon’s suspensions during his junior year at Krop High involved crimes that could have led to his prosecution as a juvenile offender. However, Chief Charles Hurley of the Miami-Dade School Police Department (MDSPD) in 2010 had implemented a policy that reduced the number of criiminal reports, manipulating statistics to create the appearance of a reduction in crime within the school system. Less than two weeks before Martin’s death, the school system "http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious- case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/"> commended Chief Hurley for “decreasing school-related juvenile delinquency by an impressive 60 percent for the last six months of 2011.” being reported as crimes, but instead treated as disciplinary infractions. In October 2011, after a video surveillance camera caught Martin writing graffiti on a door, MDSPD Office Darryl Dunn searched Martin’s backpack, looking for the marker he had used. Officer Dunn found 12 pieces of women’s jewelry and a man’s watch, along with a flathead screwdriver the officer described as a “burglary tool.” The jewelry and watch, which Martin claimed he had gotten from a friend he refused to name, matched a description of items stolen during the October 2011 burglary of a house on 204th Terrace, about a half-mile from the school. However, because of Chief Hurley’s policy “to lower the arrest rates,” as one MDSPD sergeant said in an internal investigation, the stolen jewerly was instead listed as “found property” and was never reported to Miami-Dade Police who were investigating the burglary. Similarly, in February 2012 when an MDSPD officer caught Martin with a small plastic bag containing marijuana residue, as well as a marijuana pipe, this was not treated as a crime, and instead Martin was suspended from school. Either of those incidents could have put Trayvon Martin into the custody of the juvenile justice system. However, because of Chief Hurley’s attempt to reduce the school crime statistics — "http://www.scribd.com/doc/135564937/Sergeant-William-Tagle-Internal-Affairs- Investigative-Report"> according to sworn testimony lie and falsify” reports — Martin was never arrested. And if he had been arrested, he might never have been in Sanford the night of his fatal encounter with Zimmerman. In fact, the reason Zimmerman was patrolling the townhouse community the night of the February 2012 shooting was that "http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman- idUSBRE83O18H20120425"> there had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood although there was no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any of those crimes. As for Chief Hurley’s policy, it was the controversy over Martin’s death that accidentally exposed it. In March 2012, the "http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at- trayvon.html"> Miami Herald reported on Martin’s troubled history of disciplinary incidents at Krop High investigation in an attempt to find out who had provided information to the reporter. During the course of that investigation, MDSPD officers and supervisors described Chief Hurley’s policy of not reporting crimes by students. Chief Hurley was subsequently accused of sexually harassing two female subordinates. He "http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/06/3270822/former-miami-dade-schools- police.html"> resigned in February death. Either he is a thug or he isn't.
How a Miami School Crime Cover-Up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin’s Death
#142. To: strepsiptera (#139)
You are correct. What you refuse to accept is that the only crime relevant to this case is assault, not prior action by Trayvon or by Zimmerman. The evidence in this case substantiates an assault on Zimmerman by Martin which warranted self defense with a firearm. Hence, an acquittal of Zimmerman regarding the death of Trayvon Martin. There is no such crime as wanting to be a thug. We don't have a department of precrime.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#143. To: Jethro Tull, strepsiptera, James Deffenbach (#141)
Thanks, JT. That was very complete answer to strepsiptera's question. James Deffenbach - I think you can drop the wannabe when referring to Trayvon as a thug. strep: Either he is a thug or he isn't.
#144. To: Jethro Tull, All (#102) (Edited)
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. 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.
-------
"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
#145. To: abraxas (#142)
I see some of y'all are still trying to be jackass whisperers when your time would be better spent doing more productive things. Like washing your hair or trimming your toenails, you know, useful activity. It is of no benefit to you or anyone else to try to help those who have shown, over and over, that no help is wanted and none will be accepted. Still, if that is your mission in life carry on. >(;^{]
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
#146. To: scrapper2 (#143)
That was kinda tongue in cheek when I called him a "wannabe." He was already a thug but not graduated yet to the level and with the street cred he would have liked to have had. James Deffenbach - I think you can drop the wannabe when referring to Trayvon as a thug.
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
#147. To: GreyLmist (#144)
And you remain the only person that has mentioned accidental shooting, alleged or otherwise, in connection to the Zimmerman case. I said: not self defense so much as an accidental shooting, meaning more like an alleged accidental shooting than self defense.
#148. To: GreyLmist (#144)
He was driving to Target to go grocery shopping. Are you suggesting he should have done that in some type of uniform? and wasn't dressed like a Security Guard either
#149. To: GreyLmist (#144)
It was Zimmerman's decision to not go to the hospital, not the paramedics at the scene. 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.
#150. To: GreyLmist (#144)
Assertions no longer apply since the matter is legally settled; the jury disregarded the State's case and found for the defense. That means your comment above is now irrelevant and quite possible hallucinogenic. 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.
#151. To: GreyLmist (#144)
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. 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?
#152. To: abraxas (#142)
I actually agree with you that both Trayvon and Zimmerman's actions or alleged actions should be judged on what they were doing that night, and not on a bunch of innuendo about their previous lives. My point is the same standards should be applied to both. If Zimmerman's past life is irrelevant because he was never convicted then the same applies to Trayvon.
#153. To: scrapper2 (#134) (Edited)
That part is true. And just as any normal person would think and react, Trayvon reacted in fear and tried to defend himself. He died in his attempt. And like I said, had Trayvon been armed, chances are he'd still be alive. Somebody had posted on this forum that Trayvon was a juvenile delinquent. If that were true, Trayvon would have either been in the custody of the county or state under close supervision, or he'd have been under house arrest. And even were this the case, he would never have been allowed to walk the streets at night as he did. And since there is no record of him being under house arrest or serving time in county or state custody, Trayvon had just as much right to walk to the store and back home. He was a free young black man until, some trigger happy vigilante decided to take that freedom and life away from Trayvon. c. I thought you were the get-along gal who posted a few messages up. "I'd go crazy on their ass" doesn't sound very peace seeking, "I'm ok you're ok" per the persona you presented in message #83: Oh I am but if somebody is tailing me from behind with a loaded pistol, I am in fear of my life and will defend myself all the way. I will not cower like a pussy with my tail between my legs running home. I will fight! b.Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed. There is no evidence that suggests Trayvon had any knowledge of Zimmerman being armed before the shooting took place.
#154. To: purplerose (#153)
Jethro Tull already posted that Saint Skittles own mother called juvenile detention FIRST when he came up missing. That speaks for itself. Somebody had posted on this forum that Trayvon was a juvenile delinquent. If that were true
-Alex Kurtagic
#155. To: X-15 (#154)
I don't the Florida laws on this but it appears to me that the mother was aware her son was up and around the neighborhood and unless Florida Juvenile Detention Center has some exceptions to juveniles basic freedom and liberties then Trayvon really was a free man and had every right to be where he was.
#156. To: purplerose (#155)
I don't the Florida laws on this but it appears to me that the mother was aware her son was up There. Fixed it for you. I don't the Florida laws on this but it appears to me that the mother was aware her son was up and around the neighborhood
and to no good around the neighborhood...
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
#157. To: abraxas, All (#82) (Edited)
Perhaps he isn't good with street names. Is that so difficult to believe? Hell, I don't remember the names of all the streets in my neighborhood either. Why is recall of street names such an important conspiracy theory aspect? Also it was dark and raining, so he couldn't simply see the street signs. He wanted to give the cop on the phone the correct information...wouldn't you want to do the same? Apparently, there are only 3 streets in the entire complex. Retreat View Circle goes all the way around it circularly and is the street Zimmerman lived on, as well as the fiancee of Trayvon's father on the other side of the neighborhood. Zimmerman lived where a short street named Long Oak Way went in a straight line to Twin Trees Lane, which is the main street that winds from the front entrance of the complex, along the clubhouse and to the back entrance. According to Zimmerman's statements, he knew that he wasn't on the huge, circling street that he lived on. He was on The Long and Winding Road, so it couldn't have been Long Oak Way, the short street that ran directly across from his house to Twin Trees Lane, the street he was on that night, which was the only one left of the three to pick from. He claimed in his police station interview to be unfamiliar with that street name because he didn't live on it [never mind his patrols of the area for months?] and because it was "just a sidestreet" that cut through the neighborhood. But everytime he went in and out of the complex in his vehicle (like his weekly trip to the grocery store, as he said he was doing that night), he would have had to encounter that street intersection, Twin Trees Lane -- the main thoroughfare connecting both gates, which he claimed to be unfamiliar with and so didn't know the name of it. George Zimmerman Sanford Police Interview [Lie Detector/Polygraph] (February 27, 2012) - at 27:12-27:24 of the video for that statement. Map link 1, Map link 2, Map link 3 There is much more than that about his statements which isn't credible. He never had to go beyond the house he parked in front of to get an address number by the garage door and say it was for the main street connecting the entrances or he could have gone a short distance to his left through the walkway between the buildings to get to an address for Retreat View Circle -- a street that he wasn't on but oddly wanted to give as directions for the police. Reference: Reenactment video 7:00-7:45. He did not shoot Trayvon to stop his head from being bashed into the cement. He says that he had moved off the cement and he stated numerous times to the police that he was being suffocated but then the screaming recorded likely wouldn't be his. Turns out that he wasn't even acting as an on-duty Neighborhood Watch Patrol that night and, reportedly, the HOA/Homeowners Association stated that they aren't supposed to be armed there. What he was acting like is a Janet Napolitano "See something, say something" spy/vigilante because someone who actually might still have been unfamiliar with the area was looking around... not walking fast enough in the rain... running... not running... looked out of place. Zimmerman's actions are comparative to the person who got their neighbor killed by the police because she reported him as up and about at strange hours when that was because he worked nights. Edited for spacing and capitalization + timestamp. Why didn't Zimmerman know the names of the streets he'd been in charge of patrolling for six months when he had lived in that neighborhood for years since 2009?
-------
"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
#158. To: Jethro Tull (#149)
That's not what he says here at 35:56-36:56. Do you have another source? It was Zimmerman's decision to not go to the hospital, not the paramedics at the scene.
George Zimmerman Sanford Police Interview [Lie Detector-Polygraph] (February 27, 2012) - YouTube
-------
"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
#159. To: GreyLmist (#158)
Name: Kevin Patrick O’Rourke Witness Summary: He has been a firefighter/EMT for 10 years. They responded to the incident while heading back to the station from another call. They arrived on the scene about 5 mins after the call, and there were police present. They were directed to the back of the building and where they were told was gunshot victim. They placed their 4-lead monitor on Martin and found he was asystole in all four leads. The medic on scene, Mike Brandy called it. They gathered their equipment, and the police told them there was another patient. Zimmerman had what looked to be a fractured nose. Bleeding was under control, and he had lacerations on the back of his head. They cleaned him up and headed on their way. They cleaned blood off his hands and face. They left him in the care of the Sanford Police Department. O’Rourke was Rescue 38, he and his partner, Mike Brandy. The medic on the scene is in charge of the scene. He got on the scene and he grabbed the airway bag. He placed him on the monitor, if he remembers–he put the stickers on him. Once it was done, he disconnected him. He says the monitor indicated no heartbeat whatsoever. “He is DOA and unworkable.” Mike Brandy is responsible for making that call. Martin was DOA, and was never conscious. He had a gunshot wound to the chest. His shirt was already rolled up. They had been busy that night. At the time they didn’t have ID on Trayvon. Zimmerman declined transport to the hospital.http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/fire-department/kevin-orourke-paramedic/
#160. To: Jethro Tull (#151)
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. 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.
-------
"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
#161. To: GreyLmist (#160)
John Good, from 20' away, witness TM on top of Z, beating him about the face & body "MMA style" *while* Zs head was on the concrete walkway, ergo, felonious assault given Zs subsequent injuries.
#162. To: GreyLmist (#160)
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. 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.
#163. To: GreyLmist (#160)
Just the opposite happened. It moved from the grass up to the cement walkway. See Good's testimony. Additionally, even though Zimmerman says the fight had moved to the grass where he wasn't in danger of the cement
#164. To: GreyLmist (#160)
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 (accepted in court as true, not alleged) to the fight) 
#165. To: GreyLmist (#160)
and a small mark or two on his head
alleged (not alleged, his injuries were accepted by the State as having been caused by TM) to the fight 
#166. To: Jethro Tull (#159) (Edited)
Me at #158: That's not what he says here at 35:56-36:56. Do you have another source? Jethro Tull at #159: http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/fire-department/kevin-orourke-paramedic/ Name: Kevin Patrick O’Rourke Witness Summary: [Excerpts] ... They placed their 4-lead monitor on Martin and found he was asystole in all four leads. ... Zimmerman declined transport to the hospital. At the axiomamnesia.com site: Florida Department of Law Enforcement – March 24, 2012 (~ min) [11:09 AM audio interview of Firefighter/EMT O’Rourke more than a year later] axiomamnesia.com blurb: Zimmerman had what looked to be a fractured nose. Site Comment says that O'Rourke's lead crew member, Michael Brandy, wrote in the report that there was tenderness to the patient's nose. At 2:44-2:50 of the audio, O'Rourke says they placed their 4-lead [monitor] on Martin and determined that he was dead then at 5:18-5:23 he says that Martin was assessed with 3-lead. At 4:04-4:18, O'Rourke sounds agitated over being asked to clarify who he means by "we". At 5:14-5:18, the questioner says he isn't a Medic and O'Rourke makes a reply about not having to use colloquial/informal speech. He then makes a strange statement at 5:28-5:34 that (after he disconnected Martin and walked away from that scene) he went to treat Nano-Zimmerman. Nano-Zimmerman?? Says there at Wikipedia that Nano is a prefix meaning a billionth; a Greek-derived prefix meaning dwarf; nanoscience/nanotechnology. At 7:18-7:43 and again at 8:32-8:39, O'Rourke says that he recalls no statements made by Zimmerman in his presence. Meaning no statements from Zimmerman that he thought his nose or skull was fractured or that he was in pain and O'Rourke doesn't mention that he had a nosebleed. Even if O'Rourke believed that Zimmerman declined hospital transport (in contrast with his comments about hearing no statements made by Zimmerman in his presence), that wouldn't be the same thing as hearing him decline transport there. If Zimmerman did decline an option of transport to a hospital instead of going to the police station first, then that would indicate he probably didn't think himself that he was very seriously injured or was more concerned with the financial aspect. However, he's indicated that the police made the decision to take him to the station for questioning first, evidently because he had not been determined at the scene to have been seriously injured enough to require stitches or fracture X-rays with immediacy or further treatment. In addition to Zimmerman's CVSA-video statements cited above at 35:56-36:56 on the issue of his being transported directly to the police station, he also says with more detail earlier in the video at 0:06:38-0:07:26 that the police said they were going to bring him to the police station first. He says he spoke to his doctor later and was told that if he had been cleared at the site as not in emergency need of MRI/CT scans, that it was up to him if he wanted to pay for that after he was released from the police station. Around 0:04:40-0:05:00 he mentions his Psychologist and his medications at 0:15:27-0:15:47, Librax for his stomach and two narcotics: Aderall and Temazepam. Although he claims difficulty breathing through his nose at 35:04-25:15, it doesn't seem noticeable and he never complains of a headache from it being slammed into cement, nor does he appear to have trouble moving his neck and head. Noting here also that he writes in the CVSA video with his left hand at 0:03:07-0:03:38 to sign for a swab-test, like he's ambidextrous -- gestures Edited parenthesis wording at 3rd paragraph from the bottom + last paragraph. Jethro Tull at #149: It was Zimmerman's decision to not go to the hospital, not the paramedics at the scene.
George Zimmerman Sanford Police Interview [Lie Detector-Polygraph] (February 27, 2012) - YouTube
twice three times that his gun was on his right hip at 0:32:36-0:0:32:42, at 0:32:53-0:33:04, and at 0:41:37-0:41:40, as well as in his Reenactment video at 12:27-12:50.
-------
"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
#167. To: Jethro Tull (#165)
The State could be wrong about that. not alleged, his injuries were accepted by the State as having been caused by TM
-------
"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
#168. To: GreyLmist (#166)
Crump said Wednesday the injuries cited in Zimmerman's medical report do not clear him of shooting Martin. "You have to look at this in the full context," he said. "George Zimmerman made the decision to get out of his car, profile Trayvon Martin, pursue Trayvon Martin and confront him." He said the report shows that Martin was fighting for his life and the altercation never would have happened if Zimmerman had not pursued the teen. He also questioned the severity of Zimmerman's injuries. He said Zimmerman refused to go to the hospital at the scene usatoday30.usatoday.com/n...medical-report/55022578/1
#169. To: GreyLmist (#167)
You would know about being wrong. The State could be wrong about that.
#170. To: Jethro Tull (#169)
foolish words talking about the person like a small mind rather than the issue like a gentleman. You would know about being wrong.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) (It's a more positive message)
#171. To: Jethro Tull (#163)
Just the opposite happened. It moved from the grass up to the cement walkway. See Good's testimony. See Zimmerman's own statements about that -- here for example, where he clearly tells Hannity that he was able to get from the cement to the grass: video.foxnews.com: Interview segment with Sean Hannity at 5:20-5:39 Also, in the first 33 seconds of that video interview, he talks about walking to Retreat View Circle at the end of the long sidewalk where he thought he would meet with a police officer but he didn't wait there or give the non-emergency dispatcher an address for that street as directions (who he said he was on the phone with at the time in his CVSA interview at 0:28:50-0:30:32 and had claimed then was the reason he walked to that street). He could have gotten to an address for Retreat View Circle quicker by the walkway between the buildings to his left when he got out of his vehicle but giving any address for that street would delay the police (and EMT, if needed) from reaching the correct location from there. Even simpler, he could have gotten an address number for the street he was actually parked on (Twin Trees Lane - not Retreat View Circle) from the house in front of him or the one next door to it. Additionally, even though Zimmerman says the fight had moved to the grass where he wasn't in danger of the cement
-------
"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
#172. To: Jethro Tull (#162)
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. 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.
-------
"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
#173. To: Jethro Tull (#168)
[Crump] said Zimmerman refused to go to the hospital at the scene No evidence is reported in that article to support Crump's claim and Zimmerman's own statements say otherwise. I gave you the coordinates at Post #166 to verify what Zimmerman said about that himself in the CVSA interview at 0:06:38-0:07:26 and 0:35:56-0:36:56. usatoday30.usatoday.com/n...medical-report/55022578/1
-------
"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
#174. To: GreyLmist (#172)
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. There is no evidence that TM was the aggressor and Good's testimony isn't evidence of that
#175. To: GreyLmist (#173)
Zimmerman refused to be hospitalized. This is sworn testimony of the first police officer on the scene. Officer Timothy Smith of the Sanford Police Department, the first officer on the scene, testified that Mr. Zimmerman, although he complained of dizziness, ultimately declined to be taken to the hospital. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/neighbor-describes-glimpse-of-fight-in-zimmerman-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
#176. To: titorite (#170)
So how's that "proof" of yours coming? You know, the proof that you claim to have that Martin was being chased by Zimmerman door to door while Martin was screaming for help...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#177. To: GreyLmist (#172)
Good Lord, since you seem to believe that Zimmerman is a minion of Satan, if not the devil himself, why don't you make it your mission to hunt him down and kill him? You do realize the jury didn't agree with you and found him not guilty so why do you persist? I believed O.J. Simpson was guilty of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman too and I think that he got away with it because of his race and money. But I don't know that I took on as much over that as some of you have over poor Saint Skittles (who was actually a thug in real life).
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
#178. To: James Deffenbach, Former Lurker (#177)
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.
#179. To: All (#157) (Edited)
Cross-referencing info at Post #49 of 4um Title: New Mural In Florida’s Capitol Building Shows Zimmerman Shooting Trayvon Martin Edited for spelling.
-------
"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
#180. To: Jethro Tull (#174)
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. There is no evidence that TM was the aggressor and Good's testimony isn't evidence of that
-------
"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
#181. To: Jethro Tull (#178)
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. 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.
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
#182. To: GreyLmist (#180)
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. That has nothing to do with seeing who was the aggressor/assaulter in starting the fight
#183. To: Jethro Tull (#175) (Edited)
Zimmerman refused to be hospitalized. This is sworn testimony of the first police officer on the scene. Officer Timothy Smith of the Sanford Police Department, the first officer on the scene, testified that Mr. Zimmerman, although he complained of dizziness, ultimately declined to be taken to the hospital. What are you trying to prove by ignoring Zimmerman's own statements that I've posted more than once? That he didn't think he was seriously injured? That he refused to go to the hospital unless Sanford paid those bills? That he lied in his statements? I don't know what your point is on this but no matter how many sources you cite to the contrary, Zimmerman himself stated that the police made the decision to transport him directly to the station and he did not opt to go to the hospital on his own after he was released from questioning either. Edited for spelling + grammar, last sentence. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/neighbor- describes-glimpse-of-fight-in-zimmerman-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-------
"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
#184. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#183)
35:56 - 36:56 In the vid you provide, Z never discusses how that decision to go directly to the police station was arrived at. The sworn court testimony I've provided should clear up that part of your tangled conspiracy; he declined to be transported to the hospital at the scene of the shooting because that's what he wanted. Now, given that it's only you still arguing the outcome of the trial (yes, even Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Obama have dumped it) I strongly suggest you reconsider the evidence and join the real world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjRp-vIvTNg
#185. To: GreyLmist (#183)
What, no answer? Ping to #182
#186. To: Jethro Tull, James Deffenbach (#182)
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. 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.
-------
"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
#187. To: GreyLmist (#186)
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. My understanding was that we were discussing the aggressor/assaulter as the starter of the fight.
#188. To: Jethro Tull (#184) (Edited)
In the vid you provide, Z never discusses how that decision to go directly to the police station was arrived at. The sworn court testimony I've provided should clear up that part of your tangled conspiracy; he declined to be transported to the hospital at the scene of the shooting because that's what he wanted. I also cited this section: 0:06:38-0:07:26 as well as 0:35:56-0:36:56. He never indicates that he refused transport or that it was his decision to make. He says that the police made that decision. If he was seriously injured enough to require further treatment immediately, likely he would have been transported to the hospital whether he wanted to go or not. I don't know what you mean by a tangled conspiracy about that, except to insult, or what your point is in arguing about it but I'm out of time right now to go round and round about it. Edited for formatting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjRp- vIvTNg
35:56 - 36:56
-------
"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
#189. To: Jethro Tull (#187)
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. 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.
-------
"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
#190. To: GreyLmist, The Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog, 4 (#189)
Show me. You do realize that nobody but you, and perhaps King Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party, believe this right? 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
#191. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#188)
49:45 - 50:30 As per trial testimony, it was Zs decision whether to go to hospital or not. He chose to go directly to the police station. Now, if you're still are confused I suggest you call the Sanford PD, ask for Officer Timothy Smith, and call him a liar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xJWmVvuhnU
#192. To: Jethro Tull (#190)
Show me. I already posted evidence of that at #171: ... he clearly tells Hannity that he was able to get from the cement to the grass: Here's the relevant transcript verification: HANNITY: ... And you made a statement to the police you wanted to get to the grass. Was that to prevent your head from banging on to the cement again? The Big Numbers Song - Video link set to start at 2:15 I realize that's what you are claiming but I think you are underestimating the number of people you've overlooked. 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
video.foxnews.com: Interview segment with Sean Hannity at 5:20-5:39
FOX Exclusive: George Zimmerman breaks silence on 'Hannity' - Transcript, Pg. 4
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
HANNITY: How close was that in proximity?
ZIMMERMAN: It butts up into the concrete.
HANNITY: And were you able to get to the grass?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.You do realize that nobody but you, and perhaps King Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party, believe this right?
-------
"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
#193. To: GreyLmist (#192)
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. Do you realize this comment you are offering is a statement by Z which indicates he was wanting to get on to the grass to prevent additional blows to his head on the cement? Does that get thru to you? HANNITY: ... And you made a statement to the police you wanted to get to the grass. Was that to prevent your head from banging on to the cement again?
#194. To: GreyLmist (#189)
10:30 - 11:30 ********* ********************** 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
#195. To: Jethro Tull (#191)
49:45 - 50:30 As per trial testimony, it was Zs decision whether to go to hospital or not. He chose to go directly to the police station. Now, if you're still are confused I suggest you call the Sanford PD, ask for Officer Timothy Smith, and call him a liar. The section of the video for Officer Smith's court testimony that you cited is not relevant to the issue of Z's statements in the CVSA interview about his being transported from the scene to the police station rather than the hospital and who made that decision there. According to him, it wasn't because of a refusal by him at that point to be transported to the hospital instead. The testimony you cited from Officer Smith is about Z claiming lightheadedness enroute sometime during the 15 minute ride to the police station (after having left the scene where Paramedics had released him from their care back to Officer Smith). Smith then contacted his Supervisor, who advised that Z be given the choice to go to the hospital to be examined for his claim of lightheadedness rather than continue on directly to the station. Smith asked him if he wanted to go the hospital or to the station and be reevaluated there by FD/the Fire Department and he said he wasn't sure what he should do. With no discussion from Smith about hospital expenses as Z's responsibility to impact his decision, Z decided that he didn't want to go to the hospital to be re-checked and so was taken to the station and didn't lose conciousness on the way. I don't know why it seems so important to you to discredit Zimmerman's CVSA interview statements about the on-scene decision issue of transport to the police station rather than the hospital [Post References: #166 - 1st YouTube linked for that evidence at 0:06:38-0:07:26 and 0:35:56-0:36:56 | also submitted at #173 and #188] but I don't object if that's what you want to do for some unfathomable reason that I'm not getting. There are quite a few problems with Officer Smith's testimony, though, which you cited that I think should be noted. For one, much emphasis was focused by Z's attorney on whether the back of his pants looked wetter than the front, said to be due to him being on his back on the ground during the fight. Officer Smith repeatedly answered that was his observation. However, that sounds contradictory to Z's claim of straddling Trayvon to allegedly restrain him facedown. If that were so, likely his pants from the knees down would have been as wet or wetter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xJWmVvuhnU
-------
"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
#196. To: Jethro Tull (#193) (Edited)
This is the part relevant to the issue of necessary force to terminate the fight or not: Edited line 1. HANNITY: And were you able to get to the grass?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
-------
"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
#197. To: GreyLmist (#195)
Stacy Livingston, fire fighter and paramedic on the scene. 21:00 - 22:00 It was Zs call as to hospitalization or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilv-U4Hb3-w
#198. To: GreyLmist (#196)
HANNITY: And were you able to get to the grass? ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. Wrong. The ongoing assault, coupled with an attempt by TM to snatch Zs gun, made DPF necessary in the eyes of the jury. Nothing you have mentioned, or continue to mention, was relevant in the mind of the jury. As much as that bothers you, and the radical, racial left, it's over and the good guys won. Deal with it. This is the relevant part to the issue of necessary force to terminate the fight or not:
#199. To: Jethro Tull (#194)
[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? 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
-------
"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
#200. To: GreyLmist (#199)
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'm not sure what Zimmerman's acquital symbolizes for those still rallying around him
#201. To: Jethro Tull (#200) (Edited)
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. 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.
-------
"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
#202. To: GreyLmist says Zimmerman is Guilty (#201)
Your defense of TM has taken your twisted conspiratorial mind set to a new low. Anyone, by law, can follow another anywhere they want to. If the person being followed feels ill at ease, and has a phone as TM did, a call to 911 would have be the correct response. Zimmerman, regardless of how he came to be on his back getting his head knocked into concrete, had a right to defend himself, as he feared for his life. Try as they did, the State of Florida had absolutely no evidence to contradict this basic fact. This was as simple a case of self- defense, save for the insertion of Obama and the predictable Marxist race hucksters. I can only hope that one day you, or someone you love, is confronted by TM-like thug. A nasty thought indeed, but it is your ilk that releases these predators from their cages.
#203. To: GreyLmist (#201)
Have you ever been in an altercation, GreyLmist or handled a firearm?
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#204. To: GreyLmist (#201)
Cases are weighed on evidence presented. Every "problematic statement" you trip over was in evidence and found not to be problematic, but instead irrelevant. 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.
#205. To: GreyLmist (#201)
Seriously? He requested that the police respond to the development *before* the shooting. Furthermore, the police responded 2 minutes (See Officer Timothy Smith) after the shooting as a result of a multiple calls by neighbors. Z was made aware of one such 911 call immediately after the shooting by a neighbor. Show this forum how Z "moved to prevent a call to the police for emergency help."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
#206. To: GreyLmist (#201)
His intent wasn't to kill but to instead to stop the assault. Please tell us exactly how many MMA style blows (see John Good) to the head are needed to cause unconsciousness or grave serious injury? The answer is it could be as little as one. Since he had already sustained many, his use of DPF was justified as per the jury. 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.
#207. To: GreyLmist (#201)
How very childish and silly. Spoken like a person who is terribly naïve regarding street thugs and their violent behavior. How does one do this when pinned to the ground? Aren't these the very kinds of situations that brings one to become a gun owner? As far as you suggesting that Z should have fired a warning shot, or shot TMs big toe, rather than shoot center mass, the idea is to stop a felonious assault in the fastest possible way. He fired into TM the way anyone with experience in these matters would have done. 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.
#208. To: GreyLmist (#201)
That's ironic? He came out after the shot and he's also the neighbor who said he called 911 and the police were responding. Again, it took 2 minutes for the police to respond after the shot was fired. This obstruction nonsense you keep babbling about is the product of an overactive imagination. 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
#209. To: GreyLmist (#195)
Z straddled TM after he has shot him. TM lived app. 15 seconds after being shot. Nothing contradictory here except to those steeped in Masonic conspiracy. For one, much emphasis was focused by Z's attorney on whether the back of his pants looked wetter than the front, said to be due to him being on his back on the ground during the fight. Officer Smith repeatedly answered that was his observation. However, that sounds contradictory to Z's claim of straddling Trayvon to allegedly restrain him facedown.
#210. To: GreyLmist (#196)
HANNITY: And were you able to get to the grass? ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And the difference it made so long as Saint Skittles was STILL on top of Zimmerman and beating him? You do understand that people have been killed just by punches, don't you? This is the part relevant to the issue of necessary force to terminate the fight or not:
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
#211. To: GreyLmist (#199)
WTH? You believe Saint Skittles was on top of Zimmerman but may NOT have been hitting him? What do you think Saint Skittles was doing and why was he on top of Zimmerman, was he trying to have sex with him or something? 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."
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
#212. To: James Deffenbach (#210)
Apparently Grey thinks had Z landed a well placed shot to TM with his keys, he would have run like a scared rabbit.
#213. To: Jethro Tull (#212)
LOL! I believe most of us know that $#it like that only happens in movies where no one is actually trying to hurt anyone. Apparently Grey thinks had Z landed a well placed shot to TM with his keys, he would have run like a scared rabbit.
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
#214. To: GreyLmist, JD, 4 (#199)
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."
#215. To: Jethro Tull (#214)
I don't know where Saint Skittles supporters come up with the $#it they claim to believe. Like how deadly force wasn't necessary in that case. But from the available evidence it sure seemed to me that any reasonable person would have concluded that their life was in danger when someone was pounding their head into concrete and showed no intention of letting up on the beating until they were either seriously injured or killed. The only thing I think Zimmerman did wrong was to get out of his truck but even that was certainly not against the law. Following Saint Skittles wasn't against the law either. Just think, if it was against the law to follow people there would not be enough jails in the world just to jail all the lawbreakers in places like NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Rio or Sao Paulo. At any given time untold millions of people are "following" whoever is in front of them so of course it is ridiculous to think that following someone is "against the law."
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
#216. To: randge (#203)
Yes and yes. Have you ever been in an altercation, GreyLmist or handled a firearm?
-------
"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
#217. To: GreyLmist (#216)
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. 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.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#218. To: James Deffenbach (#215)
Their 'facts' are pulled out of thin air and despite being knocked down with sworn testimony, they continue with what is a very peculiar agenda. I don't know where Saint Skittles supporters come up with the $#it they claim to believe
#219. To: Jethro Tull (#202)
You, like many on both sides of this issue, are much too emotionally attached to this case to be able to discuss the evidence objectively and fairly. I can only hope that one day you, or someone you love, is confronted by TM-like thug. A nasty thought indeed, but it is your ilk that releases these predators from their cages.
-------
"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
#220. To: GreyLmist (#219)
You discuss evidence? You've personally made this thread a dumpster fire of disinformation, and when you're called on it, rather than concede a point, you simply flitter off into some delusional world where sworn testimony is trumped by your fiction. I'll say this as nicely as I can; you're clueless and in need of help. You, like many on both sides of this issue, are much too emotionally attached to this case to be able to discuss the evidence objectively and fairly.
#221. To: randge (#217) (Edited)
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. 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.
-------
"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
#222. To: GreyLmist (#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".
#223. To: Jethro Tull (#220)
I don't know what you're talking about as disinfo but don't give a hoot. Please don't bother yourself to ever speak to me again. I don't need to be reminded that your only problem with this case is anyone who has any problems with the evidence and verdict. There's lots of things about the evidence I'd like to discuss that should be discussed but not with you.
-------
"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
#224. To: GreyLmist, Jethro Tull (#221) (Edited)
Lemme see, GZ knocked TM out. The latter then staged a fracas where he pummeled on Z who hollered . . . I am all mixed up at this point. The cuckoo has struck. I am out of here. Jethro, this is all yours.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#225. To: randge (#224)
I'm with you randge, her KooK has made this place a raging tire fire. 
#226. To: randge (#224) (Edited)
That was slick entrapment. Silly me, I didn't realize that it was ok for you to speculate about the situation, as if it indicates that TM had the drop on GZ (no witness no matter)... and also in terms of something I had never said about GZ attacking him bare hands first... but if I venture to speculate, too, about your bare hands first comment as to a possiblity that would sound more plausible to me than GZ attacking him first fisticuffs-style (considering his Army service and the scant evidence on their hands of a struggle) then I'm the one who's being irrational and contemptible. Funny how that works but lesson learned about such missteps, as if this is something that can be discussed casually in polite conversation with the Z fans. For anyone actually concerned with the evidence, these are the relevant issues of my post that should be of higher priority than personal disdain about me: Edited for grammar, spacing, punctuation. 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.
-------
"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
#227. To: James Deffenbach (#210) (Edited)
HANNITY: And were you able to get to the grass? ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And the difference it made so long as Saint Skittles was STILL on top of Zimmerman and beating him? You do understand that people have been killed just by punches, don't you? Yes, I do understand that people have been killed just by punches. Even so, I wouldn't consider it a good thing if the depopulation agendists are scampering as we speak to "fix" any threat of that for us by assisting with legally lowering the bar of necessary force in self defense to automatically shooting each other to death if anyone ever hits us anywhere that we happen to be. Edited for grammar. This is the part relevant to the issue of necessary force to terminate the fight or not:
-------
"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
#228. To: GreyLmist, Jethro Tull (#221)
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. 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".
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
#229. To: James Deffenbach (#228)
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. 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.
#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. I've been asked by the Queen of Odd not to communicate with her...
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
#231. To: Jethro Tull, randge (#229) (Edited)
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. I've been asked by the Queen of Odd not to communicate with her so her wish is my command.
-------
"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
#232. To: GreyLmist (#231)
Let's all take a pill on this, GreyLmist. All parties have said everything they want to say on this topic, and there's not likely to be much further consensus on points of disagreement. At this juncture there's always gonna be more smoke than light in the discussion. It's been entertaining though. Cheers.
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#233. To: All (#201) (Edited)
How to Use Car Keys for Self Defense - eHow Edit to add another good option from the site, if available: at no point did [Zimmerman] 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.
Punch your assailant in the eyes with your keys if you are being attacked. Use the key as a weapon to do whatever is necessary to escape.
Use the key fob or the head of the key to sound your car alarm if a threatening person approaches you. Again, you have to have your key in your hand in order to be able to do this. In most cases of newer model vehicles, hitting the alarm or panic button will sound an alarm, start the lights flashing to alert help, and attract attention.
-------
"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
#234. To: GreyLmist (#233)
Stick the key in his ear and turn it like you would in the ignition. Then grab him by the testicles (this should cause significant pain), lift your eyebrows, open your eyes super wide and whisper to him really creepy like... "Who's the bad guy now, huh?"
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers" ~ Thomas Pynchon Gravity's Rainbow
#235. To: randge (#232)
There are some issues I think should be noted for the record, consensus or not. The car keys topic was one that I thought could perhaps be helpful to others. Cheers to you too, randge. :)
-------
"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
#236. To: wudidiz (#234)
Good idea. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the tip, wud. :) Stick the key in his ear and turn it like you would in the ignition.
-------
"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
#237. To: All (#235) (Edited)
2. Re: AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching - YouTube #92: Various comments on the Lean issue and case Edited to add section 3 of the 5 and 1st line of last section. some issues I think should be noted for the record, consensus or not.
1. #111: Articles and video on John Good's testimony + controversy and evidence issues Re: Post #221 above in this thread
#90: Addresses the Lean issue + Toxicology
Article news video states at 1:58 that Trayvon was found with his hands under him -- not arms spread out like Zimmerman described.
At 20:50-21:51 of the video, O'Mara asks what the normal hospital transport procedures would be and Livingston explains that a patient could make the decision to go to the hospital or not if they are fully awake and alert. However, this was a situation of arrest and so wasn't routine procedures. Starting at 21:30, she testified that she didn't know how the determination was made but it was determined that if Z was going to receive further medical care, the Police were going to take him. Nothing was said to indicate that decision was ultimately made by Z rather than the EMTs assessment of his condition for clearance back to the charge of the Police. O'Mara asked if it became the responsibility of the Police at that point (to transport him to the hospital if needed) and she answered: Correct.
much emphasis was focused by Z's attorney on whether the back of his pants looked wetter than the front, said to be due to him being on his back on the ground during the fight. Officer Smith repeatedly answered that was his observation. However, that sounds contradictory to Z's claim of straddling Trayvon to allegedly restrain him facedown. If that were so, likely his pants from the knees down would have been as wet or wetter.
According to his statements, Officer Smith drove past Zimmerman's truck instead stopping there as the meeting place arranged in Z's call with the dispatcher. Smith does not state anything about his Police vehicle's flashing lights and siren being on for the emergency. He drove all the way down the street to the other end of the buildings and says he shone a spotlight between them, which Zimmerman didn't mention seeing in his accounts of what happened. Then Officer Smith proceeded to drive all the way down the other side of buildings, got out of his vehicle and walked around the corner of the row that faced Retreat View Circle without his gun drawn, even though the situation had been upgraded with the 911 calls from Suspicious Person to Shots Fired. Smith is unclear about seeing the gun or not. No mention of Miranda Rights when arresting Z. O'Mara spoke about Z's eyes being watered but Z had claimed there was blood on them. Smith says that GZ had no trouble balancing or walking. No blood in the patrol car from injuries. Did not lose conciousness or fall out of the chair at the station.
-------
"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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest