Zimmerman looks pretty beat up. Now there's no denying he acted in self defense.
You can't see the blood and grass because it was all caught by the white hood and robes. Luckily the police let him change into his street clothes before that hauled him in. You can still see the pitch on his hands from the burning cross though...
I don't know what video you're looking at but
it sure isn't the one I POSTED.
Look closely, you can see the blood still running from his nose and fragments of concrete embeded in the back of his head. Zimmerman is the victim here. Thank God Almighty he had the right and the means to end his suffering.
I couldn't disagree with more. What ever you're seeing on this Zimmerman is not visible to my human eyes.
To think a violent person like this Zimmerman calls into question do you really understand the only person with a gun kills the only one without a gun a victim I couldn't buy that store with a truck full of gold.
Looks like he might have a concussion, too, along with a broken arm, hemorrhoids, learning disabilities, and anxiety disorder.
Ron - what the hell is wrong with you? I'd like to hear it in your own words.
What's wrong with me?
I reject the premise of your question.
There are still some people in the world who don't use racial slurs. It helps curb the insanity in a world where hate has morphed into a creature waiting to pounce.
It is clear to me then Ron you are not here for any other reason then to see if you can keep hatred going on between the races-same old routine year after year.
Keep your hateful Klancakes to yourself! You're being naughty again.
I've received numerous emails about Travon who was rumored to be a drug dealer and gang member.
No his killing may not have justified and we just dont know if it was self defense yet.
people have to stop taking sides until all the facts are out.
If Trayvon was a drug dealer......does that outweigh the police dispatcher who told Zimmerman to Not pursue and Not leave his car?
If Trayvon was a gang member....does that outweigh the police dispatcher who told Zimmerman to Not follow and let the police do their job?
Foolish people will look to spread around innuendo and controversy to mar Trayvon's image......but there was only one person who broke the rules...there was only one person who disobeyed a direct order.....and it was not Trayvon.
I receive emails that tell me Obama is a Marxist Islamist Jihadist Socialist who wants to give everyone health care and welfare while also wanting to destroy the world....
The facts of this case will come out, and Zimmerman will get locked up.....
Because this Florida law "Stand your Ground" is so vague, any hot head with a gun and feeling threatened can shoot first and ask questions later. The police have their hands full and I predict more unless this law is repealed.
IF Trayvon had shot him . would you still be unhappy?
Zimmerman does have a violent background and I also blame the neighborhood watch for not doing a background check..
He wasn't really standing his ground though... he was following the kid. That's acting like a predator, not standing your ground. People should be able to protect their own house, but they don't have the right to run after somebody.
If the law is so vague that "standing your ground" means chasing after someone, then the law should be amended, not repealed entirely.
In Italy, they don't have stand your ground kind of laws, and if someone breaks into your house you can't even punch a burglar, because that would be assault with a deadly weapon. I think that we should have the right to defend our own homes, but not to chase after people.
You're right, Mike. Zimmerman should be in jail now. If he'd taken his butt back to his house and let the police do their job like he was told, Trayvon would still be alive.
Was this kid a saint? No, but neither are most teenage boys.
It has been said if you tell a lie it can go round the world in a matter of minutes, tell the truth and no one may never hear it.
Have these techniques of vilifying, blaming the victim been utilized time and time again? Just how many civil rights leader's reputations having been tarnished by innuendo an outright lies for example the FBI writing an extortion letter to Dr. Martin Luther King and his wife for what, because they Mr. King was trying to change the status quo which needed to be changed.
This smear campaign is cointel pro. Used against a young kid!
It's pathetic, and shows the sickness of America.
BTW--you are going to be surprised to learn that Zimmerman has friends in high places...and that's why he is being allowed to get away with murder.
same old story, same old song and dance, my friend.
Span Star - so are you saying you do or do not believe the FBI sent a letter to King? I wouldn't put it past them, especially at that time.
LMC - I have to agree with you on the sickness of America.
Well, like AA says: Admitting it is the first step towards recovery!
Oh they did send that letter as it has already been proven Hoover head of the FBI viewed Martin L King Jr. a threat and so wire taps and the like were used against Mr. Kings and some of his party memebers by the FBi.
Dear Hubpages Friends:
In the event I am ever shot by any person of any race, please assume it is because I have either pissed someone off or scared the hell out of somebody. Even if the person who shot me was a fricken leprechaun, the above reasons apply. My skin color is irrelevant.
In the event that I ever shoot a person of any race, please assume it is because they have either pissed me off or scared the hell out of me. Even if the person I shot was a fricken leprechaun, the above reasons apply. Their skin color is irrelevant.
In either case, please either just have my funeral or arrest me -whichever is applicable. There need not be any bounties or outraged citizens. Keep Al Sharpton the hell away from it. And if my mother tries to trademark my name please shoot her too.
In this case, the color was the point of the murder.
Shall we ignore that?
He thought he had one of "those a$$holes that always get away"....."a black male."
"What are you doing around here?"
....Clear as day to me. And thank god Sharpton holds their feet to the fire.
Or, the Russshhhh's and Gingrich's of the world will twist it to be a justified killing.
And that is despicable.
Oh, good to know there's finally a reliable eye witness. Someone who knows the whole story and isn't just deciding based on media slant. That should clear things right up.
The media is slanting to the right.
There needs to be a balance.
Because there is plenty of evidence against this guy....he just gets a pass because of who his father is.
Don't believe me? Keep watching the news.
You can't slant the obvious---though they try everything in their power.
"In this case, the color was the point of the murder."
"those a$$holes that always get away"....."a black male."
The man that tutors black kids (for free) on the weekends has hidden his true feelings well, but you have ferreted out his true nature!
It's absolutely amazing how you can come up with information that no one else has. You must have the private number to Ms. Cleo, noted fortune teller. Will you share it?
Oh, he showed his true feelings.
The other one can't feel anymore.
That's what I mean. You can obviously see directly into his mind somehow and know what he's thinking. ESP maybe.
"In fact, there is nothing to indicate anything other than an execution style slaying."
Call it intuition, and the experience of having lived in a lily-white area and having my eyes and ears open.
I can smell it.
ESPECIALLY since Fox is now involved. That tells me it's a Cult operation.
Every day of inaction is a day of injustice.
Arrest Zimmerman today!
Zimmerman's dad on Fox, defending his son!
Sharpton is necessary!!
Springsteen sings for Trayvon:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n … -skin.html
"And if my mother tries to trademark my name please shoot her too."
This nonsensical remark can only be understood as a bash of Trayvon's mother. I suppose you should have your son killed, and have the shooter walk away while the justice system sweeps it all under the rug..
Only in an online forum can ridiculous remarks like these exist......or perhaps at the environments that loons like Limbaugh socialize within...
My son did die from medical neglect while in the care of my husband. No charges were filed. I didn't feel the need to trademark his name... I was too busy grieving. So yes, it was a slam.
With respect to the events that you mention regarding your son (using the word "respect" as in "paying respects" as well as its often use as a way of pointing reference to a certain thing),more would have to be known before a correlation could be made between these two cases.
If Trayvon was your son, Melissa, I don't know if you would have written what you did, or behaved in the same way that you did concerning your son. If people rallied around what happened...if the media had gotten word of what was going on in your case, and you watched all kinds of action in response, what would you do?
You would watch people make money of this as well.. Songs/music videos benefiting the writers/producers/talent, garments being sold with slogans, new Trayvon markets would grow without any action by the family.
If this was your situation, what would you do? Lawyers do cost money. At the same time, a foundation/benefit program of some type could be set up to take in that money and help people out. When tragedies happen to white kids and the parents set up ways of collecting money, either to pay for legal fees or for public benefit, I hear no criticism.
Going back to the Trayvon case, the biggest kicker is this, in my mind: The denial of a crime committed against Trayvon, in this case murder/manslaughter, is also a denial of the family to seek redress of grievances against either the killer or the police department, who are quite likely (and I'm only saying this because I have not read the police reports yet) responsible for misrepresentation/denial of justice, or worse.
They do have an established track record for this type of thing, though. And this speaks even more to your case, Melissa. The son of a lieutenant in this same department assaulted a homeless man, who was black. No charges were ever brought against him. It all disappeared quietly. This homeless man was someone's son, but he's homeless, so no one cares.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … oting.html
What about the officer who handled the case?
"In the case involving Justin Collison, the police lieutenant's son, Mr Raimondo chose not to press charges against the boy even though he broke the homeless man's nose. Mr Raimondo was the one to release the teen from custody.
There was a video of the incident, and the police chose to cover it up. Only after local news outlets found out about that cover up did they press charges against the boy."
No, the biggest kicker is the number of people willing and eager to convict based on a sensationalist media story and a person's color.
I truly hope I never end up in court with a jury of hubbers. It's absolutely scary beyond belief that of all the posts in this thread only a couple haven't made up their mind without researching for facts or even waiting for someone else (the police) to do it. Just convict because a white man shot a black man.
Every single time I have seen and followed one of these threads about a terrible miscarriage of justice future evidence shows that the initial response was completely off the wall. I expect no difference in this one, and am indeed hearing more and more that the incident was not as originally projected. There is always far more to what happened than that the first, almost panicky, response from media and the vigilantes of HP.
"Arrest" is not the same as "convict."
However, if, when all is said and done, it comes out that what many call "sensationalist media/political pandering and exploitation/rush to judgment" is actually verified....then it was all justified.
The more I learn about this case, the more it is very, very, very, beyond a reasonable doubt certain that Zimmerman is responsible for something criminal, whether unlawful weapons possession, unauthorized assault, failing to follow the directions of professionals...to murder/manslaughter.
Your perception is only correct when the 911 operators words are removed from the equation.... If the operator said "go get him" then you would have an argument to make...
But this isn't what happened.... There is no defense for that decision-making... The inability of what are supposed to be "competent professionals" to see any of this (or worse, to act to cover it up/mislead the public) points to something that you should be very upset about.
Why aren't you?
While I don't know if it is true, I have heard that Zimmerman had a license to carry the firearm, and he did not assault anyone. Failing to follow the directions of a 911 operator is not criminal, and there is no evidence (yet) of manslaughter. That he continued to follow Trayvon was stupid (especially on foot) but not criminal.
So what would you arrest him for? Stupidity? Self defense? While I realize you would make an arrest for suspicion of murder I would fervently hope that a cop can't arrest anyone based on a gut feeling that they have committed a crime. Some kind of evidence is needed and even now, after several days and much yak yak, there does not seem to be evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.
And that's the problem I have with this thread. Your concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a far cry from what a court means with the same words. You claim no doubt and begin a list of possibilities with no evidence whatsoever - that's very definitely not how a court of law finds a "guilty" verdict. Yet Zimmerman is to you, obviously and without any doubt, guilty of something. If not murder you'll find some other baseless charge to hang on him.
For not assaulting anyone, I wonder how Zimmerman ended up with a dead body on his hands....or rather, under his leg, according to witnesses.
If a phone was knocked to the ground, as the person Trayvon attests she heard, someone had to make physical contact with the other.
Magical winds didn't cause this to happen.
This is beyond "did Zimmerman have a license to own the weapon"....was he authorized to be carrying it/wielding it during the course of neighborhood watch? As far as I am aware, any civilian who then is going to carry a firearm in terms of providing security or guarding has to then have a secondary form of certification.
Following the directions of the 911 operator, who is connected directly to law enforcement, is key. You can try to minimize this, Wilderness, but this is ultimately going to nail Zimmerman to the wall.
He is not a peace officer.
He had no authority (aside from what he concocted in his own mind) to pursue or apprehend Trayvon, and no probable cause to do so.
Trayvon had every right to defend himself. If I had some guy come up to me and instigate a situation I would do the same.
So far, the Zimmerman camp has shown nothing but attempts at deception. The broken nose had to be set by a doctor somewhere....the wounds sustained in this "life or death struggle" had to have been photographed by police and documented, as well as documented by the medical professionals who treated him.
Why doesn't he come out and show us the broken nose? Zimmerman, come out and show us your wounds! Why are you hiding? If I was innocent of this I would be on t.v. as much as Trayvon's parents, if not more....
What I have heard, without confirmation from anywhere:
Yes, there was an altercation. Zimmerman and one witness attest he was attacked by Trayvon. Could be true, might not.
Zimmerman is not associated with the neighborhood watch program. He makes the claim, but he is a neighborhood watch of one. Could be true, might not.
No, you are not required to follow the directions from a 911 operator. While associated with the police, I don't think many operators are police officers and they are trained more in medical matters than law enforcement. That he did not follow directions (or orders) has nothing to do with criminal activity. Stupidity, yes, but not criminal.
Zimmerman did not attempt to apprehend Trayvon, merely to talk with him, find out what he was doing in the neighborhood. Could be true, might not. I have been known to follow a drunk driver until police showed up and would not hesitate to keep an eye on a suspected burglar around a neighbors home if I could do so safely.
Zimmerman has not made any attempts at deception. That he has not gone public and tried to prove his innocence of murder - well I wouldn't either. If I figured I might be charged (and he has to know it is likely) it would be a zipped lip until in court with an attorney. The public and their insatiable appetite for news and scandal could go p*** up a rope.
Zimmermans wounds were noted, reported and documented by police. Broken nose, lacerations to back of head, grass stains on back of shirt. Presumably they are documented by medical people that set his nose (assuming it set by now). Neither have any duty to report that to the news, and medical organizations are forbidden to do so. And maybe those reports are bogus - I got it from a radio talk show.
Trayvon had no right to "defend himself" by preemptively attacking Zimmerman. If he did - or maybe Zimmerman knocked him around some and then shot him when the tables turned, although that seems a little far fetched.
You know, I've had a very similar situation happen to me. In nice weather I often take an evening walk around the neighborhood, and once had a new resident come storming out of his house, demanding to know who I was, where I lived and what I was doing on the public sidewalk in front of his house. A little scary (he was twice my size and two more were in the open garage). It irritated me considerably to be accosted that way, but I calmed down a little when he explained that I was "scaring his womenfolk" by walking by. No violence from either one of us, and we parted amicably if not as friends.
Perhaps as a result I can see both sides of this and can understand how easily it could escalate into a confrontation ending in disaster. That absolutely does not mean that either party is automatically to blame, or is automatically blameless.
I will attempt to make no assumptions, to wait for the facts to come out and to not prejudge either man.
I agree....if a house was on fire and you were walking by and called 911....if the operator said "don't go in", it would be within one's bounds to disregard that message...for the sake of saving lives.
Let's imagine a potential scenario for Trayvon, however.
Trayvon is walking down the street, and an unidentified guy calls out to him and asks where he lives/what he's doing...
Let's say, in a bad case, Trayvon told him to go "f" himself and get the "f" away from me.....whatever...
Is Zimmerman authorized to proceed on towards Trayvon?
How can Trayvon become the aggressor? How could he be the one who first put his hands on Zimmerman? Was "Mr. Safety Police" following him harassing him to the point of breakdown? Or, did Zimmerman do something, like jump in front of him or block Trayvon's path, that caused a reaction? In the latter case, that would definitely be a defensible position for "Stand Your Ground" on behalf of Trayvon.
Remember, Zimmerman is not in uniform and has no credentials of any kind. Wilderness, what would you do if that had been you at his age and some guy does any of what we have discussed here to you? What would you do?
Zimmerman had to initiate contact....Trayvon had no motive to single out and approach Zimmerman....and that is what it comes down to.
Everything that happens after Zimmerman contacts Trayvon is irrelevant. What was Zimmerman thinking he was going to do? How was he going to "figure out" if Trayvon was "up to no good"?
These are basic, very reasonable things to ponder on, and, again, if it were me as Zimmerman I would have come out a long time ago, and not send out surrogates to make a case for me...
The officer on the scene who wrote the report, and documented Zimmerman's injuries has quite an interesting history regarding what he considers "justice" when it comes to white men assaulting blacks....
Ultimately, I think there is rot within the department, which is why people have resigned and stepped away. Zimmerman's stupidity was simply what is bringing attention into this dark corner of the Florida criminal justice system.
OK, lets imagine a little different scenario...
Zimmerman sees Trayvon walking along, "casing" the cars and houses. He follows. Trayvon gets nervous, as evidenced by the phone call he had. Zimmerman approaches, to find out what Trayvon is doing - Zimmerman is concerned that a crime is in progress, or about to be. (Note that this is just what happened to me - the homeowner was scared I was up to no good and wanted some reassurance that I was OK).
And yes, Zimmerman may be on the street. It is not against the law to walk there or to speak to someone. He doesn't need specific authorization to do so.
Trayvon, scared because someone is following him, attacks verbally and Zimmerman responds. It escalates, and Trayvon strikes out in his fear - the fight is on. Zimmerman is being badly hurt and reaches for his gun - the rest is history.
Can't happen? Of course it could. Didn't happen? At this point, who knows? You make the claim that it could not have been Trayvon that started the fight, but you don't know that at all. Fight or flight it is called, and for good reason - Trayvon would not have been the first to start a fight simply because he was full of adrenaline.
You ask what I would do - the true story I gave is exactly what could well have happened. I was accosted by a fearful homeowner, demanding to know who I was and what I was doing on "his" street, just as Trayvon could have been. Just how that homeowner was going to "figure out" if I was up to no good is immaterial and of no consequence - the point is that it can happen just that way. The difference, of course, is that it did not escalate into violence.
You keep asking if Zimmerman did this or that to start the physical fight - at this point in our knowledge why aren't you asking what Trayvon did to start the fight? Was he aggressive? Was Zimmerman friendly, only to be cursed and threatened? Did Trayvon make threatening motions? All valid questions, but no one seems to be asking them. Why not? It just doesn't look to me like it is truth that is wanted here - it is a noose for Zimmerman, regardless of what happened.
You comment that the cop on the scene has an interesting history - is it any different, really, than the group that has put a bounty on Zimmermans head? That later posted his address, that of his father and a completely innocent couple on the net? Why does no one question what is happening on that end of the tragedy? Maybe because no one cares what happens to Zimmerman, his family or anyone else caught up in the web of hatred and vigilantism. A young black man is dead and someone, anyone at all that is white, must pay for it regardless of what really happened there.
There may be rot in the Florida cop shop, but I see little difference between that rot and a bunch of people that have found a body in the street and are ready to hang a man for a "crime" that they don't know he committed. No one on this forum knows what happened or has any real idea at this point. We're all mad about it, we all see the tragedy in that boys death. That anger, however, is no reason to convict an innocent person. It is no reason to continue and to grow the public outcry before we do know what happened. It is, rather, a very good reason to calmly and rationally try to figure out what the truth is - to look hard at both sides as dispassionately and as objectively as possible. To step back from our anger and dismay in order that we do hurt innocent people in that anger.
Have you considered what life will be like for Zimmerman if (if) he is innocent of murder? IF he killed in self defense? Not only will he have to live with that on his mind forever, but he will also have to live with the public "knowledge" that he chased down a young boy and shot him to death simply because he didn't like blacks. He will forever find and interact with people that "know" that he is a murderer. A court declaration of innocence won't change that - the internet (and posts like those in this forum) will insure that he is guilty whether he is or not. Can we not limit that madness?
Our court and justice system, as pathetic and pitiful as it is, still dispenses far better "justice" that a bunch of vigilantes raging at the world for both real and imagined wrongs and demanding that someone pay.
Or let's just forget about the fact that Zimmerman was arrested for attacking a police officer in 2005, and also had to undergo anger management counseling. His ex-girlfriend also filed a restraining order, and he has called the cops "almost 50 times within the last year." I guess you find none of this relevant.
A violent history, a stalking of a minority AGAINST the orders of the 9/11 dispatcher, and you claim that he isn't somehow responsible for starting the fight? Unbelievable and indefensible.
Tut tut. Zimmerman (according to another post here) is innocent of attacking a cop. Arrested, maybe, but never found guilty.
Zimmerman called the cops 50 times? Sounds like a law abiding citizen to me, asking police for help when needed. You might mention, too, that those calls were in connection to suspicious activity he observed in the neighborhood watch activity. Never taking matters into his own hands, always notifying the cops. Sounds most reasonable.
He did not stalk a minority, merely approached to converse. 911 dispatchers cannot give orders that are legally binding; that is a red herring.
As far as responsible, I think, based on what little we know that if Zimmerman had remained far away nothing would have happened. I suspect, without having any knowledge of the matter at all, that if Trayvon had respectfully indicated his home a few yards away it would not have happened. If Trayvon had run home it would not have happened. Responsibility is without a doubt shared here.
None of that, though, has any significance to what I'm trying to say here. This thread has convicted and hung Zimmerman out to dry without having the slightest notion of what really happened that day, and that is just wrong. It is wrong ethically, it is wrong legally and it is my only argument here.
"Another post here"? You have got to do better than that.....http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS283684187120120329. Providing some evidence would be a good start. The article is about what is "admissible" in court, but it shows he was arrested and charged.
"Suspicious activity"? The same way Martin was suspicious right? His pattern of behavior is paranoid. How many arrests came out of those 50 calls???? I'd venture to say little to none, since his lawyers and defenders would be playing up the fact that he had a good track record if there were. But I digress...
The 9/11 dispatcher told him not to follow Martin. You are right that it's not against the law to ignore commonsensical advice, but it is really stupid. If Zimmerman would never have followed Martin to begin with, there would have been no death, and the story never would've made national news.
As to who started the fight, considering Zimmerman has a violent past and has a tendency to overreact to "suspicious" people, the more likely explanation is that he is the one who first initiated. You have provided no evidence from Martin's past to show he was ever violent, but there is direct evidence about Zimmerman.
Also, the lead investigator on the night of the murder wanted Zimmerman arrested, at least, for manslaughter. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- … -shooting/
I think that's what I said - Zimmerman was arrested and charged. He was not found guilty and is therefore considered innocent.
Suspicious activity - isn't that what neighborhood watch "watchmen" are supposed to do? Look for suspicious activity and call it in? Like Zimmerman did? And to decide that Zimmerman is then paranoid because he called in? That's a little harsh isn't it? I mean without knowing where he lives or if his neighbors are making meth or running a prostitution ring? Just another "fact", though, "proving" Zimmerman is obviously a bad guy.
I fully agree - catching up with Trayvon for whatever reason was really, really stupid. Legal, but stupid.
I've seen report (again, in this forum) that Zimmerman had one (1) instance of violence resulting in a domestic violence claim. I've seen a couple of those where the man (larger and stronger) got charged for little to nothing. I've also seen much worse than "nothing". Which was Zimmerman? Was it ever repeated, or just one episode, maybe drunk?
I agree that Zimmerman probably initiated the violence. Is that how we solve crimes now - decide what was likely without needing evidence? Or do we need to know, "beyond a reasonable doubt" before convicting?
Look - if Zimmerman deliberately chased down this kid and provoked a fight with the intent of killing him I would not let him rot in jail for even a year - put him in the chair and be done with it. I just can't seem to get through, though, that it is only an IF at this time - that our justice system is built on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". 9 out of 10 posters here seem convinced of guilt, want a trial without evidence and don't seem to care what went down that night.
I give up - it's past my bedtime and I can't seem to get the point across anyway.
He wasn't charged because he entered an alcohol education program. "According to the report, the charges were reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Msnbc.com reports that accounts indicated Zimermann shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at a bar. " That sounds like a plea deal to me. The altercation with the officer and the restraining order filed by his ex girlfriend are the only instances I know of when he was actually involved with the law, so I don't know anything more on this front than you do.
I don't believe Zimmerman actually intended to kill Martin, even though he chased him down, according to Martin's girlfriend anyway. She was on the phone with him right up to the point that the fight ensued, and the phone logs bear that out.
However, the alcohol rehabilitation program in the past, the extreme suspicion with the plethora of police calls, and his violent past, I think Zimmerman was intoxicated when he went after Martin (since the police department did no testing on him whatsoever, I don't know if this can ever be known for sure), but it would at least explain why he was so aggressive.
If you don't want to get him for murder, he should at least be tried for manslaughter. I don't know if there is enough evidence to get him for anything else, even if he is guilty of it. Here is a quick link from a recent witness. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justice/f … index.html
Even if it occurred exactly as you describe he is still guilty of murder, if you are fighting someone who is unarmed and you shoot them it is not reasonable self defense thus Zimmerman should still be arrested and tried with murder.
Furthermore Zimmerman is not even white, I don't support vigilantism and I don't think anyone here is, I don't approve of his address being given out, what people are asking for is a trial, in a democratic country people have every right to petition for a fair trial and indeed they should if they believe one merited, as part of their civic duty.
I'm not sure of the legality of your claim of murder. How far must you let an unarmed man beat you before resorting to the only defense possible to a weaker person? Broken bones? Unconscious and hope they quit then? How much damage would a court accept as reasonable before you shoot?
Zimmerman is being called a white hispanic, whatever that is.
So you think that YOU should be able to demand a trial of an obviously innocent person because YOU think they might be guilty? No - it doesn't work that way, thank goodness. A trial is necessary when police think they have evidence to convict, not because someone that knows nothing of a case thinks so.
I don't know of Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, harassment, stalking or anything else. Neither do you. Presumably, if the police think they can prove a case for any of these there will be a trial. Neither your nor my wishes to see such a spectacle have, or should have, any bearing on the matter.
Nor do I agree that there are no vigilantes here. I have seen many many posts producing all kinds of wild claims about Florida justice, Zimmerman in general and the cop that began the investigation. Trayvon was no angel, but no one mentions that - just wild emotional comments about Zimmerman which they cannot possibly support.
"In this case, the color was the point of the murder." or
"You're right, Mike. Zimmerman should be in jail now." or
"a violent person like this Zimmerman " or
"you are going to be surprised to learn that Zimmerman has friends in high places...and that's why he is being allowed to get away with murder."
Sounds like vigilantes to me, that have already mentally convicted Zimmerman without having the slightest idea of what actually happened there.
Somehow Trayvon has to get within arms reach of Zimmerman....again....who is larger...who has just approached him at night in regular clothes...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin … 3U2pNWiYoo
""He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."
Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."
The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said."
Wilderness, you have to somehow create a motive and predicament for Trayvon to initiate hostility...and as of yet, you have failed to do so.
I reiterate, an arrest is not a guilty verdict.
An arrest is a sign that something wrong happened warranting further investigation.....and we all know that is the case.
In terms of Zimmerman's "whiteness", that is a matter of how he perceives himself. His comments "they always get away" before he tracks down Trayvon and kills him shows that he does see himself as something separate and apart from whoever (in his mind) constitutes the "they"...
He proves that he stereotypes and generalizes based on solely visual means.....and behaves as though he knows something...he's behaving as someone who has something to prove.... He has clear, substantiated motive in that regard as well...
I don't know, Wilderness, how you can consider Trayvon's phone call a sign of some sort of nervousness/anxiety/suspicious behavior on behalf of Trayvon.
With that kind of logic I suppose I should be wary of anyone I see making a phone call after I cross their path or when they can possibly perceive my presence?
The substance of the phone call, if accurate as reported, speaks volumes.
The phone call - what am I missing here? I understood he told his girl friend he was being followed, and he would not run but would "walk fast".
To me, that means he's nervous and/or scared. Someone follows me around down a dark street, and I know it, I'm nervous - wouldn't you be?
I don't know Wilderness. Zimmerman didn't look attacked in the video I saw. And Trayvon is dead, so anything can be said about him. I don't think people should have such easy access to guns. More people and especially children are killed by handguns in American than anywhere else. I know in TX or Va, they figure, give everyone guns, so if someone threatens to shoot you, you can shoot back. This is just stupid to me. So we have a dead boy. An alive man who we know was following the boy for no reason. Trayvon was on the phone telling his GF that someone was following him. The 911 caller told Zimmerman to back off, and let them handle it. He didn't listen. OK, maybe that's not a crime. But murder is. Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon by at least 50-75 pounds. Do you think that skinny kid had a chance against a hothead with a gun? The police in that area have had racial issues before, and the police chief they have now was brought in to clean things up. I'm just shocked that such rednecks still exist in this country. I know it's your profession to get all the facts. This one bothers me alot though, that kid shouldn't be dead. And worst of all, why wasn't the gun taken from Zimmerman, and he should at least have been taken in for questioning, and kept in a holding cell until this was sorted out. He's not the only criminal here.
"Zimmerman had a domestic restraining order against him which precluded him from, not just carrying a gun, put owning a weapon or even keeping one in his home. His only other prior problem was an arrest for assaulting a police officer which led to him entering an “anger managment” program."
Uh huh.....geuss cause daddy was a judge, he could play cop all he wanted.
Oh ok....look it up. Cause be sure it will out.
Sorry, I have a hard time believing that. If such a restraining order were in effect and he was caught carrying, he would be in jail or out on bond. Such a simple thing could not be overlooked by police and with all this in the news could not possibly be ignored, either.
On the other hand, these kind of claims are a dime a dozen - there will always be someone willing to perjure themselves to gain a little notoriety. Perhaps he had that restraining order a decade ago. Perhaps he has one, but it was specified his guns went with him when he left home. You know as well as I do that if it were to "out" as you put it it would have done so already. Such things are a matter of public record and any decent reporter can find them.
Not saying it can't happen, LMC, but it seems that a domestic restraining order (I'm thinking spouse abuse?) is usually issued on the claim, without needing proof. That kind of thing seems insufficient to deny 2nd amendment rights.
1. What was the purported “conflict” that required the initial prosecutor to step down? [Orlando Sentinel]
2. Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator? [ABC News]
3. Why did then-Police Chief Bill Lee make public statements directly contradicting the official recommendations of the police department? [ThinkProgress]
4. Who leaked Trayvon Martin’s school records? [Miami Herald; NBC12]
5. Why was Trayvon Martin’s body tagged as a John Doe? Why weren’t Trayvon Martin’s parents contacted immediately after the police confirmed his identity? [Washington Post]
No cover-up and protecting a murderer?
Uh huh...and I'm The Easter Bunny.
1) Was Zimmerman legally able to carry a firearm in the manner that he did?
2) Was Zimmerman legally or officially (there is a difference) able to carry/use a firearm through his duties on the neighborhood watch?
If "no" is the response to either question, why hasn't he been arrested for firearms violations?
I remember a certain football player who accidently IHubpages marks this word as spelled wrong for some reason) shot himself while carrying a firearm in his clothes at a night club. The police did not wait very long for an arrest....and he hurt solely himself.
3) Why is the "Stand Your Ground" Law only being used for the defense of Zimmerman, as opposed to Trayvon? Who would have more right to try to defend with deadly force in this case?
If the answer is Zimmerman, why is there any controversy here? Race plays a role, especially in that police department.
It's amazing to me how people will defend a killer!
We know he killed him, we know he was told by the police to stop following this kid, and we know the lead detective wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
In fact, he said, "This was not self-defense. Read between the lines. There is some stereo-typing going on here."
And YET...after being told to leave it alone, chasing this kid down and killing him, people will still defend him!
Un real how the media turns things around.
Oh...and Trayvon's body had no cuts or bruises...on his hands, Like would have happened if they had had a big fight, and he had broken Zims nose.
Zimmerman looking fine and dandy getting out of cop car.....his lawyer saying he was "cleaned up"..HUH? When?
Hard to clean up a broken nose to not even look broken...a miracle.
Yeah...and of course, Trayvon was the one threatening to kill Zimmerman. And Obama is a hater....very strange things..."cult-like" things. And what do you know...:
"An AP story filed from Washington reveals that a police video of Zimmerman showed no injuries whatsoever, debunking his story of having been “beaten half to death” by the much younger, smaller unarmed teen who begged for his life. Earlier in the week police said they thought Zimmerman to be guilty of murder and had been stopped from arresting him based on a call from Talahasee telling them to stay away “in an election year.”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/29 … ow-a-fact/
Keep digging..the whole sordid pit will be revealed.
The video's kind of small, but I'm not seeing any blood, cuts, scrapes, bruises, or bandages on the back of his head either. If he had more hair, that might not be surprising, but he's pretty much bald!
This case is really getting ridiculous. Why hasn't he been arrested yet?
Recall, Zimmerman claimed Martin “slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered.’”
In an interview I just watched on TV the undertaker who prepared the child's body for burial said he had no bruises anywhere on his body. If he had attacked the suspect and beat on his--as the anonymous witness claimed-his hands would show some marks of the altercation with the shooter. The only marks on the boy's body was from the gunshot wound to his chest.
I'll wait to pass judgement until the facts are in. Unless they've been covered up and tampered with, of course. I believe the truth will come out eventually. But the child is still dead, either way. Bad business all around!
This bears repeating:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n … -skin.html
"According to a records search on George, he was previously arrested for domestic violence, resisting an officer without violence and most shockingly, resisting an officer with violence — a felony charge that surely could have landed him in prison.
All three of those arrests, however, were mysteriously closed with no semblance of charges for the Florida resident. So how was someone with a violent past including that of battery against an officer able to carry a 9 mm handgun? Maybe that’s a question Robert Zimmerman should answer"
From what I heard on television last night, Zimmerman should have been convicted of a felony when he interfered (scuffled)with a policeman arresting a bartender friend of Zimmerman for selling alcohol to a minor. I believe they said the charge was dropped or reduced to a non-felony.
"Did Trayvon make threatening motions?"
How threatening can one be while carrying a phone in one hand and an ice tea in the other?
Motive....who is showing aggressive behavior...
Testosterone works in two ways.....fight and flight...
Trayvon already showed an escape mentality....while Zimmerman clearly demonstrated an aggressive state of mind.
Zimmerman need not even lay hands on Trayvon to initiate a legally defensible self-defense decision on behalf of the deceased teen.
If Trayvon believed his safety to be in danger he was entirely within his grounds to attack. If someone is trying to detain another person against their will in any way, the person being detained has every right to attack in order to gain freedom.
Trayvon is under age....what if this tragedy had unfolded a different way. Let's erase Zimmerman altogether.
Let's say Trayvon was walking down the street and he was "hit up" by a theoretical gang member, or perhaps someone who wants to kidnap him. The gangmember says "What are you doing here? Where are you from?" He hasn't laid hands on Trayvon yet, but he knows that something is now going to happen physically that he cannot escape. If Trayvon strikes first, did he act in self defense?
What if Trayvon had been a female? If she preemptively struck out at what she perceived to be a threat, wouldn't that still count as self defense?
I haven't seen any cases showing that kind of precedent yet. If you have some, please send them my way.
There is clear differences in behaviors and motivations....one to get away, and one to pursue.... Even if the one trying to get away turned the tables and took out the pursuer, it would still be one the one who initiated the predicament..whichever was the action that led to the reaction.
There is definitely guilt to be perceived.
An arrest, again, does not equal a guilty verdict.
People are arrested for far more trivial reasons than this.
Regarding the officer who wrote the report, the first on the scene, and the correlation to bounties: There is no correlation outside of the victim and the New Black Panther Party (an extremist hate group) being black, and both crying for an arrest.
However, isn't making a citizen's arrest a part of American tradition? Wilderness, you look at the 50 911 calls and equate that with "being a good citizen" over "this guy has some issues that need to be resolved."
This bounty that you are pointing to......that's good ol fashioned American justice...and, in the Trayvon case, I'm wondering why, since the police have refused to arrest Zimmerman, why a citizen hasn't performed a citizen's arrest (perhaps that's also why he's hiding).
Arrest him, and let the courts figure it out. He doesn't have to have a jury trial...the judge...someone in a completely different jurisdiction, can make a ruling one way or the other.
Do you really think the Black Panthers want to arrest Zimmerman? And then what - turn him over to police like any good law abiding citizen? So the police can then set him free because of a lack of evidence?
No, it's that "good old fashioned American justice" - mob rule, vigilantism, call it what you will. It's when the mob decides "justice" and metes out punishment instead of letting the justice system do it's job.
Don't think for a minute Zimmerman is "hiding" from an arrest; police can get him any time they want him. No, he's hiding from groups like the Black Panthers (and maybe maddened hubbers) that want him to swing high and free without regard to actual guilt.
Take away his trial by jury and you will have nothing more than a trial by politics - the media and public have seen to that!
Why does he deserve to be free? Why?
He KILLED someone!
and you turn it around and say the BP's are the vigilantes.....
NO mention of Zimmy the vigilante, just Black Panthers.
So--why aren't the police getting him? You got any reasons for that?
Zimmerman is free because there is no evidence yet that he has committed a crime worthy of incarceration. Bear in mind that it is not always illegal to kill a person; soldiers do it, cops do it, the state does it and in certain very limited circumstances you may do it as well. When and if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Zimmermans actions fell outside of those very limited circumstances he will be punished.
The police aren't "getting" him because at this point there is no possibility of convicting him. They don't have the evidence to prove much of anything.
Yes, the BP's are the vigilantes. With no evidence of unlawful activity they have convicted Zimmerman (just as you have) and have put a bounty on his head. Now, solicitation for murder is a crime in all the states and that makes whoever came up with that a common criminal. To murder someone outside the justice system is a crime in all states, and to do so for a trumped up declaration of criminal activity makes them a vigilante.
You obviously don't understand the system, LMC, but in our nation you cannot simply declare someone guilty of a crime and demand they be punished without proving it in a court of law. You have certainly declared Zimmerman to be a murderer (based on racism, no less) but you have proven nothing; there will thus be no punishment.
How's this for a scenario....
A member of the BP's goes to Zimmerman's house.....thereby initiating the contact.
He brings a 9mm gun with him, but says he just wants to talk.
Things get out of hand, a shot is fired and Zimmerman is killed.
Now, the cops come, and BP member says, "I was just talking to him, and he started to come at me..punched me in the face, threw me to the ground and banged my head. I had no choice but to shoot him. It was self-defense."
You really think the cops and the da are going to let this guy go, like they did Zimmerman?
Same MO.....same result. They would have to--wouldn't they?
Possibly. Will you also indicate that a witness testified that the BP was on the ground with Zimmerman on top whaling the tar out of him?
Will you stipulate that the BP has a crushed face and lacerations to the back of the head? With grass stains on his back, corroborating the witness's story?
Will you stipulate that the BP has not threatened him - that the bounty thing never happened?
If all this goes with your story, then the police would probably let the BP go, at least for the time being. Especially if the BP does not make a point of belonging to a large hate group continuously promoting violence against other races. Again, no evidence of a crime.
I've heard a witness say that Zimmy walked away like nothing happened.
I saw the video of him at the station...sure didn't look like he was "seconds away from death" as his bro said.
I heard the 9/11 call....."Are you following him?" "Yes." I heard a nurse say had he broken his nose, there would be massive blood, and immediate bruising...lasting for days.
I heard a former prosecutor, Nancy Grace, say that in all her years in prosecuting cases, she never hear of a lawyer calling the police and telling them to let a suspect go.
And Trayvon is dead on the ground...flat on his face, How exactly was he on top of 240 pd Zimmerman?
This has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and the KILLER still is free with his GUN.
Law enforcement? More like protecting their own.--not the cops, mind you...they wanted him charged. This goes higher up. Obviously.
http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com … solidarity
I agree that the BPs are way out of line. It's not like Zimmerman is in hiding or on the run.
What the Black Panthers want to do has no bearing on the case, or whether or not charges are filed against Zimmerman.
Their behavior does not represent the Trayvon family, at least I have not seen even an inkling of a relationship.
Again, they are only common in terms of skin color and desire to see Zimmerman arrested. Somewhere in that hate group there may be desire to see Zimmerman hang, or worse, but I am sure that there are others (or even the same persons) who want legal justice to be served.
I never claimed Zimmerman was hiding from the police.....so far they've done nothing but protect him.
As I said, the citizen's arrest is a longstanding tradition, and I have no doubt that Zimmerman in public would he hauled in by the people.
I agree that the actions of the hate group Black Panthers have no bearing on this case. The only connection I was trying to support is that their thinking and conclusions are the same being presented here; guilty of murder based on no evidence or understanding of what actually happened.
I don't agree that the BP's want Zimmerman arrested and tried; they want him dead. You don't put a bounty out on someone for any other reason. Indeed, the claim I heard was that the bounty was for Zimmerman, but only delivered to the BP's - not the police. Doesn't sound much like a desire for a trial to me...
I again question what a citizen's arrest would accomplish. So someone grabs Zimmerman and hauls him to the police. No evidence, no trial and he's free to go. A citizens arrest doesn't guarantee a trial, although it could very well result in a (sustainable) charge of kidnapping.
I misunderstood your post if "(perhaps that's also why he's hiding)" doesn't mean that he is hiding. Sorry about that.
I suppose Trayvon's family could sue civilly, as happened to O. J. Simpson. That can only result in a monetary award, though, and not incarceration. It hardly seems appropriate if murder was done. Much easier to prove, though, and might be the only way to see some kind of justice here.
What we have proven is that there was reasonable doubt for an arrest arraignment, and movement toward pre-trial proceedings.
People are upset for the tragedy, but the flames have been fanned by what is obviously (substantiated by "leaks" from the investigators themselves) a desire by law enforcement to deny judicial review.
Why are so many people arrested for so much less?
The police decided to play the role of judge and jury, instead of their primary purpose, to apprehend and process potential criminals.
That department has a track record of this "vigilante justice" mentality....
Like I said before, I think that at least part of the motivation to keep this down is because something very wrong is going on that that police department.
This tragedy may just be the incident that brings light and attention to a much larger, more troubling, problem.
Yeah..they don't drug or alcohol test the shooter....but they do the victim.
I saw a clip with Nancy Grace....she said they let him walk into the station, wipe his shoes. Normally, the shoes would have been bagged as evidence. Could have had blood stains on them, grass, whatever. He WIPES away all that evidence at the door. She also said she never ever heard of a prosecutor calling the police and telling them to let a suspect go. EVER.
This will lead to his father and that NRA dude from Florida that Duff cited---mark it. This is as old as time, and just as rotten.
Lunatic with an axe to grind, but has a connected daddy...gets away with MURDER.
Just what is the intent of someone who follows someone with a gun? To scare him? He was already scared and hurrying away. Why confront? Big man with a gun...and immunity if ever caught.
If they let him get away with it we all will know the truth.
It's still OK to lynch a black kid in America. InMyOpinion.
All these crockodile tears for Zimmerman....And even Scarborough is asking: Why is the Right taking this up as a cause?
More to it IMO.
Zimmy is in "the club".
I'm not ready to convict Zimmerman yet - we don't have all the facts. BUT it doesn't look good for him so far. I mean, how threatening could a teenager with tea and candy be?
I just don't get the "being in the wrong neighborhood" mentality. I read that Zimmerman's neighborhood is only 40% white. Mine is 99% white, made up mostly of older citizens. Most of them are very suspicious when a minority appears. Last year, a black man knocked on my daughter's front door (she lives just up the street from me). Her neighbor saw the man knocking on the door and called the cops. Turns out the guy was homeless and looking for yard work. My daughter gave him a job to do and paid him. The guy was knocking on a front door in broad, open daylight - not trying to break in! My daughter was shocked when two cop cars showed up.
Several years ago, my youngest daughter and her best friend took a shortcut through the southside of town to get to the interstate. They were pulled over by cops for no reason, and three other cop cars joined in. The police figured that the only reason two middle-class white girls would be in a minority neighborhood would be to buy drugs. Ha! My daughter had friends who lived in that neighborhood, fellow cheerleaders on her cheer squad.
This hit home with me last week, too. I was on my front porch, watching my dog potty, when I saw a young black male approaching. I didn't have on my contacts, so I didn't recognize him. I made my Great Dane go inside so that it wouldn't bother my visitor. Turns out it was a former student who was working in the neighborhood, and he just wanted to stop by to say hello. I was worried that my neighbors would call the cops!
Also last week, a black boy about 10 or 12 knocked on my door asking to borrow sugar. His family had just moved into a house several blocks away. He told me that I was the only person he could get to answer the door. I felt so sorry for the little guy! I know my neighbors were home, as none of them work because they're all retired. I hate to say it, but I think they were afraid of him just because he was black and looked "out of place."
People need to stop being so paranoid! I'm not naive - I know there are thugs who are up to no good. Once when several black men came to my door at 3 in the morning, and another time when a white male came on my porch at 4 in the morning, I got out my trusty shotgun. None of these guys knocked on the door - the dogs let me know someone was in the yard. I didn't have to shoot any of these would-be intruders. When they saw I was armed, they left - in a BIG hurry. If Zimmerman really felt threatened, couldn't he have just fired over Trayvon's head? If I was ever physically threatened or even attacked while I was armed and the assailant wasn't, I would shoot to wound - not to kill. I'd do just enough to neutralize the situation.
That's right. Trayvon Martin was only a threat in Zimmerman's mind.
And for that, he lost his life.
Another Loon with a gun....and HE is protected by the law? And we think we are civilized?
We are insane. The whole lot. Like my friend from Nepal says--"you are scared of each other, and always looking over your shoulders for the cops...even if you're not doing anything wrong."
Who has created this? Maybe we better try and figure that out, and do something about it.
trial by publicity/media - in a democratic country there are advantages and disadvantages
Police cover up or they are not doing their duty or the initial investigation proved there is nothing to held Zimmerman. Hope more witnesses will come out.
Closer look and polish that law "stand your ground" and Trayvon Martin is just the victim. Now they will take a careful look and see if that law takes merit.
The topic of racism is alive and kicking! It is a sensitive topic and evokes emotions.
Nothing to hold him on?
He shot a kid, and they just take his word? When does that happen??
He was let go because the prosecutor made a phone call and told them to release him.
And this prosecutor allegedly got a phone call too...from some dude in Fla. giving the orders.
This is not justice, it's Just-Us.
He is in hiding. How many media agents alone are prowling for him?
He has people coming out and speaking for him....as opposed to coming out and speaking for himself....another form of hiding....behind others...
We would have pictures and video of him out in town, doing normal things... I don't know if Zimmerman was employed, but if he is, is he showing up to work?
Of course, the media would have already snatched up on this.....
He is in hiding.
"He has people coming out and speaking for him"
Which one has made a statement, indicating that Zimmerman asked them to do that? Or is that just another supposition on your part, without having any basis in fact?
What difference does it make to this case if he is working? Or is that being used to indicate that he is a sneaky, lying skunk that deserves what he gets?
That Zimmerman is a homebody (assumption, here) and doesn't get out much doesn't mean he's hiding, in spite of your innuendoes that he is. Nor does it mean that he is a slimy snake in the grass if he prefers to avoid the media, as you would insinuate. Maybe he fears for his life; I certainly would with a bounty on my head and the crazies in this country.
Somebody above complained that a smear campaign was going on to smear Trayvon (his past history was brought up). That kind of thing, whether Trayvon or Zimmerman, is beneath you Mike. If you insist that Zimmerman be tried for murder, why don't you try producing some evidence instead of trying to grind his name into the mud and accomplish it through emotional means?
He's definitely not "making his rounds" in the neighborhood...
"Zimmerman claimed self-defense and was not arrested. He has gone into hiding."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1053223
There goes my supposition...
None of this is "beneath me"....I don't even know what you are trying to say with that comment.
This is not "beneath" any one of us. A call for an arrest is not "mob justice." I have shown that there is probably cause for an arrest.
If you've shown probable cause for an arrest I totally missed it. What would the charge be and what is the evidence? Bearing in mind that you must use that evidence to prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt.
You have mentioned that "Zimmerman is responsible for something criminal, whether unlawful weapons possession, unauthorized assault, failing to follow the directions of professionals...to murder/manslaughter" - which one would you charge him with and with what evidence? Or would it be all of them?
If you choose murder, the evidence to date seems to be that there was a fight, Zimmerman was on his back in the grass having his head beat onto concrete. He got a smashed nose while not managing to even bruise Trayvon anywhere. There is a very grainy video that fails to show damage, and media has made a big deal out of Zimmerman walking naturally 30 minutes after the altercation. A second witness agrees there was a fight of fairly long duration (remember, Zimmerman did not land one good blow) but is unable to tell who was actually beating whom.
Now this does not seem to be absolute proof that Zimmerman did not shoot in self defense, and claims that the cops are lying about his injuries are worthless without supporting proof of that. This evidence does not, in fact, even prove that Zimmerman intended to pull the trigger or even did so. That a shot was fired is beyond doubt, but not who did it or why.
And yes, using loaded words and phrases to raise the emotional content of this matter beyond what it already is by "smearing" the character of one person while ignoring the other is beneath all of us. If you want to examine and speculate about what Zimmerman did in the past, or why he is "hiding" (unsubstantiated rumor from a news source intended as a comment, not factual evidence) then examine both.
I would definitely arrest on the suspicion of murder/manslaughter...absolutely.
1) It is against the rules of the neighborhood watch to carry a firearm...regardless of your licensing
2) The rules of neighborhood watch are not to confront anyone
3) He was told to stand down, but failed to yield
4) A young man died by his hands
The self-defense law directly applied, and even if Trayvon (and I am not saying he did, for the evidence..if anything...points in the opposite direction) did initiate a physical assault, there is already information pointing to his doing so in response to being followed and intimidated.
This is definitely grounds for an arrest and trial.....no doubt at all. I have been through enough trials in my time to know when there is a case...and this dog can definitely hunt..
You may disagree......I still sit here wondering why....
http://www.jadoremag.com/real-life/7733 … -zimmerman
When I say Zimmerman is hiding you call it supposition.
When media sources report that he is hiding you paint it as "unsubstantiated".
"Since the shooting, Zimmerman's supporters say he's gone into hiding..."
http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/zim … him/nLftx/
Hiding it is......
Again...if it was me, and I was innocent, I would be out on t.v.....not my brother, not a black friend, but my own face. The morning shows would all take me, and the evening shows would too... I would show off the scars and damage that was done, and I'd produce the medical reports to back up the beating within an inch of my life that I supposedly took...
There would be no hiding...there would be no fear.....
But that isn't what Mr. Zimmerman is doing....
He deserves his day in court.....the Sanford police, however, have a track record of letting people who assault blacks get away...
Something continues to stink in Sanford....and it starts at the police station.
Your first three points would be good ones if applicable. The information I've seen is, again, Zimmerman is not a part of any formal neighborhood watch, though, so the rules do not apply. He was told to stand down by someone that had no authority to do anything but advise, not order. That order is not germane, either.
Someone died, apparently at Zimmermans hands, but if a prosecuting attorney shows up before a judge and explains that, based on all reports and evidence to date, Zimmerman killed a man in self defense but the attorney wants to try him anyway for murder it won't wash.
On the plus side, my local paper reports that there is now a special investigator assigned to the case, working with the local police to gather evidence. Perhaps they'll find enough that a judge will agree that a guilty verdict is possible and the world will find out what happened there.
I don't catch anything in your links about being in hiding, but they were somewhat informative. The first one is written by someone who has already convicted Zimmerman, saying Trayvon was a victim and we should never investigate a victim only the perpetrator. The second one gives several statements from Martins attorney and you can believe a lawyer arguing his case as much as you want to. It also seems to indicate that Zimmermans attorney is not bothering to do anything at all yet and has not listened to or seen hardly any evidence. That seems right and reasonable doesn't it? After all, Zimmerman is a murderer needing justice brought to him...I do note that both links indicate Zimmerman is a real member of neighborhood watch, which is not what I've heard. I wonder which one is right? Not that it really matters; neighborhood watch rules are not a part of the law.
Lastly, we will simply have to agree to disagree about the advisability of going to the media when facing a murder trial. To me, it sounds insanely stupid; the media will absolutely twist and turn anything said into what they think will sell without regard to truth. And yes, I would absolutely have fear; I don't trust our justice system to produce justice, particularly when it has become a public circus with political ramifications.
"How can anyone defend Zimmerman? No matter what, it is clear that his action resulted in the death of an innocent teenager. It's not as if Trayvon entered his house, and he was protecting himself or his property. He followed an unarmed kid and shot him. It is clear Trayvon is dead, and it's clear Zimmerman shot him. What needs to be determined is what degree of homicide this is."
I vote for 1st degree. Set out with intent to kill. Or else...please, why have a gun?
April 10. WE WATCHING.
"I saw two men on the ground, one on top of the other. I felt they were scuffling and I heard gunshots which to me were more like pops," he said. "I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop.
"After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down. It was dark. I can't say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer. It was a Hispanic man. He didn't appear hurt or anything else. He just kind of seemed very worried with his hand up to his forehead. I saw no blood."
Did you read, one of Zimmy's co-workers called him a Jekyll and Hyde?
I used to be that way too, when drunk.
I wonder why they didn't drug or alcohol test Zimmy?...
and how a broken nose happens with no blood?
and how his father and brother can attest to what happened when they weren't there?
And my oh my......How They End Up On Fox!? this is a strange thing.
"I wonder why they didn't drug or alcohol test Zimmy?." I've seen no statements from the police that no testing was done - what makes you assume it was not? That they didn't report the results of their investigation to the media or that the media didn't report it if they did?
"and how a broken nose happens with no blood?" I'm no doctor, but I doubt that could happen. The pictures I saw showed Zimmerman with blood on his face, though - why do you ask why there was no blood? Do you assume he will walk around for an hour without wiping it off?
"and how his father and brother can attest to what happened when they weren't there?" This one is almost funny - his family can attest the same way you can declare that it was a cult operation, that it was racially motivated, that he set out to commit murder. They make it all up out of thin air, just as you did. At least they know their son (brother) and presumably have talked to him - you seem to have made your claims because it was a black man that was killed and for no other reason.
"How They End Up On Fox!?" Presumably Fox asked them for an interview - that's how such things usually happen. Is that so strange or do you "smell" evil connections here, too?
Every news source that has reported on it says they tested Trayvon, but not Zimmerman.
I heard a nurse say that if a broken nose occurs, there is massive blood and bruising...like the nose swells up for days. Did he go to the emergency room? Why not, if he was "near death"?
I make my claims because....wait for it.......WE ALL KNOW WHO DID IT!
In my mind, Fox is evil, so anything they do.....ipso/facto.
They are the tv for the Cult. Tune in to get your marching orders, my love-lies. And see the world as we spin it.
If you stand in front of a car sliding on ice you are near death. If it misses you do need emergency care? Can you still walk? Does your ability to move normally mean you were not near death?
You make the claim that Zimmerman intentionally chased down a strange man in the neighborhood in order to murder him out of racial prejudice because...wait for it...we know a man died.
I don't think you understand the difference between "knowing" and "believing". We all know Zimmerman killed a man, but we have no idea if it was a race thing, we have no idea if he approached that young man solely to murder him. We don't know why that trigger was pulled.
100% of the available evidence is that Zimmerman was being beaten badly. The cops report a broken nose, head lacerations and grass stains on his back. You may not believe any of the reports, but they are what we have. We have a witness testifying Trayvon was on top, beating Zimmerman. You may not believe that either, but it is what we have. We have a second witness testifying there was a fight that lasted for some time. You may not believe it, preferring to think Zimmerman walked up to Trayvon and shot because he hates blacks, but it is what we have.
That's the difference, LMC. You have turned Zimmerman into a racist monster, stalking the streets looking for a black man to kill. You have decided that the only reason to carry a gun is to commit murder, that Zimmerman is uninjured and was happy to become a murderer. You believe every cop on the planet will ignore actions taken against blacks and there is a coverup going far beyond the local cops. You have picked these beliefs out of thin air without a shred of evidence that any of them are true and now a major news organization is evil, spokesman for some imagined Cult.
Thank God our justice system doesn't work on belief, but on provable and proven facts.
Where did you see pictures of Zimmerman with blood on his face?
How did Zimmerman identify himself to the 911 operator?
I remember a fight I got into in junior high. I had been hit in the face...the nose to be precise.. Though doctors said it was not broken, blood ran out of my nose like water out of a faucet. I was swollen up, and even had two black eyes.
One of my buddies when I was in the Marines broke his nose while we were playing Trash Ball.....blood everywhere....and lots of swelling....not a little....not slight...but lots.
"We don't know why that trigger was pulled."
I think we do. I think the evidence is pretty clear why.
You choose not to believe that, but believe Zimmy's side.
Funny---I see no evidence of Zimmy being beaten badly...in fact just the opposite.
Trayvon Martin had no marks on his hands whatsoever.
A man claimed to see Zimmerman get off of Martin, and after that, the kid was dead.
And I have not turned Zimmerman into anything. He is what he is. You just choose not to believe it.
In fact, YOU have turned HIM into the poor victim ! It's quite unbelievable to me.
And your sweeping generalization bear no ground either. I said myself that it wasn't the cops doing this: They wanted to charge Zim!
This goes much higher up. IMO
"Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him, punched him in the nose and repeatedly slammed his head on the sidewalk. “With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel. That is the account Zimmerman gave police.” [Orlando Sentinel]
The lead investigator in Trayvon Martin shooting wanted manslaughter charge against Zimmerman. The lead investigator, Chris Serino, “stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman’s version of events.” His recommendation for a manslaughter charge was overruled by state attorney Norman Wolfinger, who subsequently removed himself from the case. [ABC News]
An eyewitness at the scene said Zimmerman “didn’t appear hurt.” [CNN]
Martin’s funeral director said his body showed no signs of fight. “We could see no physical signs like there had been a scuffle [or] there had been a fight… The hands — I didn’t see any knuckles, bruises or what have you. [CBS]
EMS records from the night of the shooting show Zimmerman sustained no serious injuries.New York Daily News]
The Martin case had been turned over to the Seminole County State Attorney’s Office"
Seminole county: Rock Ribbed Republican.....most likely pro NRA....Fox and Russshhhhh radio all slamming Trayvon.....something stinks.
Seminole Co. isn't exactly "rock ribbed Republican." Obama lost by only 2% there in 2008. The county is MUCH more moderate than most of the counties in NE Fl, Ncentral Fl, and the panhandle.
Well that's good to know, because they will have to do a real con job to not convict this guy.
Two forensic voice identification experts conclude it is NOT George Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 tapes http://thkpr.gs/H6q9H2
find it and listen to it if you want to hear a poor innocent kid screaming for his life.
I cannot stand this defense of Zimmerman.
I don't think I could stand hearing those screams.
I wonder how many kids are out playing around in their yards after dark in that neighborhood lately.
"Here guys, take these skittles and iced tea out on the patio, and don't worry about anyone bothering you. After all, now we have Neighborhood Watch"!
The Skittles and Iced Tea Defense. Look for it to be cited in all sorts of homicide cases in in the future if this guy walks, no matter how one views the case.
Jeb Bush Backs Zimmerman Arrest in Killing - http://bit.ly/H64lL3
It's nice to see a Republican playing the politics right on this one.
Good for Jeb. I hear he's smarter than his brother. I read that Jeb said this incident was not an example of "stand your ground."
Look, I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty because we don't have all the facts, but it certainly seems that there's enough evidence to arrest him and do further investigation. A jury needs to see all the evidence and make an informed decision.
Right, instead of the media doing the investigation and talking, posting this and that, speculations etc
At this point I have to disagree, Habee.
I just don't see evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for murder. Involuntary manslaughter, maybe, although that isn't recognized in Florida.
Until the prosecuting attorney is reasonably sure (s)he can support a charge of murder any arrest of Zimmerman on that charge it isn't justice; it is punishment without a trial. It simply causes him to lose his job, sell his home or anything else he has to pay bail and an attorney without much chance of a conviction. Until that PA (and a judge) truly believes a conviction before a jury of his peers can be obtained, a decision by a jury beyond any reasonable doubt no arrest should be made.
If the PA should want to reduce the charge from murder to something else, something relatively minor, it could perhaps be sustained but then any punishment might not fit the crime. Better to wait and investigate, ending up with a sustainable charge of the actual crime that was committed.
While I have an opinion here on his guilt, the very limited evidence to date leaves much doubt in my mind as to whether the legal definition of murder occurred. I cannot believe that any objective jury, untainted by the twistings and spinning of the media and public, could ever claim there was no doubt of murder yet, particularly a premeditated hate crime murder. Yet that is possible and if it happened that way that's what the charge and trial should be about.
Best that the justice system wait, get it's facts together and charge (or not charge) based on as many facts as possible. Trials are not supposed to be a form of punishment, they are not a political tool to "prove" to the public that government is doing it's job and they are not a circus show to appease radical elements of our society. They are to prove guilt (and assign punishment) and that isn't possible without solid evidence of a crime. In the case of murder it had better be hard, solid evidence and that has not been shown. Yet.
What you are saying is completely false.
I've enough experiences with the criminal justice system (my brother has had a few run ins with the law....a couple he did, and a couple more the police completely fabricated and got away with) to know otherwise. Someone can be arrested and held on one thing and then charged with something completely different. This is standard operating procedure.
They can easily arrest Zimmerman on suspicion of manslaughter and work from there.
But, down in Sanford, black men have been shown not to count.....and we don't have to look at the Trayvon case to make that conclusion
You misunderstand - I don't mean that it isn't or can't be done. I fully understand that it is SOP sometimes in our broken justice system, and your indication of fabrication by the police bears this out. It is one way to play the game - to obtain a conviction (and often subsequent income) when one can't be obtained by justice. Another possibility is to charge a crime that can't be proven and "allow" a plea bargain from a frightened "criminal".
That doesn't make it right, though. It just assigns punishment before a trial and should not be condoned by either the public or an honest prosecutor.
No punishment is assigned....
Arrest is not punishment.....it means that there is about to be a judicial investigation into the facts. The D.A.'s office in Sanford, let alone the Sanford police, have their head up their a@@e@ if they can't see probably cause.
I have watched as defendants not guilty of a crime have taken pleas....its even worse when the defendant is on parole/probation already. Discrimination takes place. However, in this case, we do not see a suspect police department making questionable arrests......we see a group of people who turned their blinders on while a young man died.....they saw what they wanted to see..
Really? No punishment?
It is obviously not called that, (that would not be PC) but if Zimmerman is arrested on suspicion of murder and held for any length of time at all his financial costs will go through the roof. He can't work or make mortgage and car payments while sitting in jail on a trumped up charge that can't be proven. He will lose friends and possibly family from those that will inevitably believe the charge without proof. His health may suffer. He may well be injured by racists in that jail. All because someone wants him behind bars for a crime that can't be proven.
Call it what you want, he is being punished without proof of a crime if arrested and jailed for more than a night or two (and anything less would not satisfy the public). Yet there is no reason to arrest Zimmerman - he isn't going anywhere and could be watched anyway. It just looks great to the public to have someone punished and behind bars for an atrocity. It relieves some of the public pressure on the state, it lowers tensions caused by media and radicals. It all looks great to everyone but the man sitting behind bars, watching his life go down the drain for something that can't be proven legally.
Yes it happens. And the guilty go free while innocents have their lives ruined. Our system is broken, badly broken, but it is all we have. That doesn't mean that we should promote unethical use of that system to satisfy our gut feeling that we know, without doubt, what happened that night.
He's already not going to work... How is he going to pay his mortgage now?
His financial costs, I guarantee, have already gone up...
Now he's worse off, for he has no ability to prove his innocence through a trial.
He may have difficulty ever getting a job again....
Arrest is not punishment.. People who are arrested, just as Zimmerman was in the past for assault....often walk away with charges dropped (even if there should be charges applied...case in point our man of the month).
People want a trial...they want a judicial review.... Many want to see him guilty, just as many wanted to see O.J. and Michael Jackson convicted....just as people wanted to see the Night Stalker get convicted...
But, the bigger issue is an arrest...... Give Zimmerman his day in court... All he has to do is show that there is reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
Our system is broken....that is for sure....and it starts with the example set by the Sanford Police Department and D.A.'s bureau...
I begin to see the differences in our opinion of what should be done here.
Yes, his costs have gone up, but that's alright isn't it? After he is guilty of something - you said so earlier. Proof is not necessary to punish him that way.
Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence by a day in trial. He IS innocent at this point. Rather, it is up to the state to prove guilt but you don't agree with that, do you? He is already guilty - you and thousands of others have already made that determination!
It is not a matter of maybe not being able to get a job - the media and public have already made that impossible, at least in the short term. But that's OK, isn't it? After all, he's guilty of murder and needs to spend his life in jail. Or, if premeditated and a hate crime (as has been declared in this forum), maybe executed.
Arrest is not intended as punishment, true. It is to keep the suspect on hand for an upcoming trial. Pretty much unnecessary here as Zimmerman isn't going anywhere. And if jailed on a charge known to be unsustainable then it is punishment - there can be no other reason for jail if we know that attempts to prove guilt will fail.
Again, Zimmerman does not need a day in court to prove his innocence. The state needs its day in court to prove his guilt. If they at least think they can.
And that's the difference here. You have declared this man to be guilty of a terrible crime and demand that he prove his innocence. What happens in the meantime is immaterial as he is known to be guilty of that crime.
That is illegal, unethical and immoral in the extreme. Instead, it is up to the state to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Until the state feels that it can do that Zimmerman is declared innocent and common decency requires that we treat the matter that way.
Zimmerman lied about his injuries...Go figure! This just corroborates the video.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/322330/ … police.htm
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/art … -injuries-
The funeral director who analyzed Martin's body also said Zimmerman's story didn't add up.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … bled=false
Put this in, along with the fact that he was the one that confronted Martin, and did some shady things in the past, and this is enough for a murder charge.
He should be outraged.
He signed that bill into law, and look what they've made of it: a license to kill.
But when the legal process is denied (as it has been for so long in this case), the court of public opinion is all that remains.
If the system in Sanford had done its job we wouldn't be here...the media would not have been able to go to the lengths they did.
This could have been nipped in the bud, but Sanford's law enforcement apparatus has shown signs of "not working in the right way." (At least when it comes to white assailants and black victims.)
But without the media attention, this would have been just another day in Florida. That is the point: This stuff happens all the time, and no one does anything about it.
Maybe now somebody will.
And Juries can be just as predjudiced as anyone else...I saw it with my own eyes.
There need so to be a systematic change. A change in consciousness needs to happen.
The ideals are wonderful, but it has NEVER been liberty and justice for all.
That is the problem. You know darn well, if Zimmerman was black, and shot a white kid in that town in Florida, he would be sitting in a jail cell right now, awaiting trial.
No, it's not liberty and justice for all. Sadly, it's how much $$ you have to hire a great attorney and/or what connections you have, in many cases. I've seen THAT happen way too many times. Still, an impartial jury is the best option we have in legal matters - IF the jury is impartial.
Sorry--but the police wanted to charge him, and they got a phone call from a lawyer and let him go.
That is not usual procedure. Something stinks here, and it MUST be dealt with, not swept under the rug.
Thank god for whoever put this out there...there is something really rotten in Denmark, and it's high time something is done about it!
All we know for sure is that a 17-year-old unarmed boy is dead...
From ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pros … 3iVydlnAoc
On of the comments in the article was that "Police did not initially charge Zimmerman because of a state law allowing someone to use deadly force if his life is in danger."
This seems in line with the idea that there may (may) have been no crime committed, or if there was that it wasn't murder. Until that determination is made we cannot reasonably expect any charge to be filed. Indeed, the article also states that the new investigator, Angela Corey, will be the one responsible to decide whether to charge Zimmerman with anything or nothing at all.
Interestingly, she has imposed a news blackout on the investigation, which seems like a very wise thing to do. So far the news has mostly produced emotional outrage but very little in the way of actual information.
These same police claim that a "life or death struggle" took place, when all the evidence shows otherwise. They claim there was bodily damage to Zimmerman, but we have no evidence of this...only contradictory information.
We see a rush to judgment determining who was defending themselves....
This is the worst usurpation of justice that is supposed to follow a process.
The police decided to be the judge and jury, however.....again...they have shown this kind of behavior before.....a certain lieutenant's son should be behind bars as well...but....the homeless man....the police decided that he wasn't worthy of justice...
And herein lies the problem....
The police denied justice....the police denied judicial review....the police have denied any acknowledgement that Trayvon could have been defending himself too......
They usurped authority......they grossly overstepped their bounds.....
Mike, you may be right, I don't know. You don't know either.
YOU don't have evidence of bodily damage to Zimmerman, but you weren't there to examine him. The people that were there you claim are liars and perjurers, but produce no evidence of that, either.
Yes, we see a rush to judgement. What is it now? 40% of the nation, including you, have judged Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder based on conflicting evidence. Not a problem, evidently, we'll just ignore that conflict or claim those that produce it are liars. Whatever it takes to maintain our opinion. Doubt is not allowed to disturb that first, early judgement.
You claim the police have decided to be judge and jury, just as you would have done. Yet, it seems to me that they (as a total group) are trying to follow the law. No crime - no charge. Special investigator appointed, and a tough one, to find the truth. Police denied judicial review because the prosecutor didn't see a crime they could prove - well, that's one of their jobs. Prosecute what they can win and let the others go. Maintain some control over those same scumbag cops that take it on themselves to be judge and jury. Don't complain when they do it, exactly as they should. That you don't agree with their decision, without having the evidence, knowledge of law, or facts of the case that they do is immaterial.
I have the body of Trayvon...which the police would have looked at...detectives would have examined... Did they find signs of "life or death struggle" on Trayvon's corpse?
There is evidence to prove that no such signs exist. The broken nose on Zimmerman...the bashed head....the pictures on the video camera were quite good... But the police, on scene, also take pictures....where are they?
Where is the doctor that treated Zimmerman's injuries?
The only evidence of this struggle are in the police report (which is highly suspect for reasons I have previously explained) and Zimmerman's surrogates.
For Zimmerman is in hiding....
I don't have Zimmerman guilty on first degree murder.
Please highlight where I said this. I have no signs of premeditation to kill someone... You are putting words in my mouth....you are, in some ways, doing to my words what you claim the media is doing to Zimmerman...twisting them to what you want to project.
No.... I think he is guilty of, at minimum, manslaughter.... I am comfortable with letting a judge/jury decide. I have said, all along, that there is reasonable suspicion for an arrest....
And you agree with me. It is as simple as that. There is nothing else for you to say.
Now the Sanford Police, the District Attorney's Office, or the State of Florida need to do the right thing. Governor Bush's remarks are a step in the right direction...
The police, and Zimmerman supporters were so quick to assume that Zimmerman must have been defending himself that there was no room for Trayvon... This is the larger tragedy.....and I definitely see color-blind racism and open racism playing a role.
Mind you, I did not say Zimmmerman was a racist...for I do not know. I do question if he would have made the same call if the youth had been white...for Zimmerman even called in black pre-teen for being suspicious....I have yet to see a single case of him calling in someone who wasn't black...
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03 … -black-men
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-iso … ry-likely/
First, let me sincerely apologize for misquoting you. You have indicated a possibility of murder (which I agree with) but have not specified that he is guilty of that. Others have, but not you.
The fight being upheld only by Zimmermans cronies and crooked cops - not true. At least two witnesses have testified that there was a fight.
You don't know the doctor that treated Zimmerman? So what? Zimmerman may have set his own nose (if it needed it) and wiped the blood off himself. Or if I were that Doc. it would again be a zipped lip - there isn't a chance I would involve myself in this fracas and would request that the cops keep my name out of it until trial date.
You haven't seen police photos of Zimmerman - so what? Do you really expect them to provide all evidence for media perusal and publication? Unprofessional in the extreme and would likely result in firing and a lawsuit. These kind of questions can only be red herrings, a comment to stir emotions without providing any real data.
Not sure what you mean by color blind racism or open racism, but I looked at your first link. It is exactly the kind of garbage that has been spun from day one throughout the country. Let me elucidate:
It says that "A new 47-page document, quietly dumped online by the city of Sanford" details some of the phone calls. I find this just a little unusual, and can't conceive of any reason a city would take such a step. I think it far more likely that the media is behind this, for their own purposes, and that the city actually had nothing to do with it.
I tentatively agree with most of what is said at the beginning. I think they have protrayed Zimmerman correctly; a man obsessed with the minute details of suburban life. A wannabe cop, trying to control the neighborhood from potholes to real criminals walking the streets.
But it then veers away by claiming 3 reports where Zimmerman complained of black men. The only 3 times it specifies, but I can virtually guarantee that if Zimmerman were the racist they are trying to portray that each and every time he reported a black man he would have specified so. Not just three times, with the rest left unsaid. Conclusion; the other 50 times were about animals, potholes, etc. And white or Hispanic men, women and/or children. No racism here.
This also fits with the report elsewhere that Zimmerman tutored black children on weekends. No racism there, either. Extremely limited data, but based on what little there is, there is no indication of Racism in this affair. Except, of course, that provided by the media and public for their own purposes.
And that's my biggest problem, Mike. The media, the public, the BP group, the cops, the politicians; everyone in the world seems to have an axe to grind here. They all want us to believe something and will present only data that "proves" that truth or that they can spin and twist to do so.
You question it because he called in a black pre-teen. So? Have you not seen reports of pre-teens convicted of murder? Do they not steal cars and other things? Do they not cause vandalism? What in the world is unusual about this that it needs to be brought out in a murder case?
Or complain that you haven't seen a single case of Zimmerman calling in someone who wasn't black. But you haven't seen the actual transcripts, you have no idea how many there might have been and what you have seen could well have been just like the one that NBC tried to make it out that he made a point that the suspect (Trayvon) was black - a complete misdirection and fabrication. This is the kind of thing we the public have to work with - so called "data" from the media and others that all want us to believe a particular way without having the information to make an informed decision.
We get old pictures of Zimmerman and Tryvon from years ago, with Zimmerman looking big and angry and Tryvon looking like a cherubic little kid. Go ahead - tell me that isn't intentional by the media to influence our opinion and I'll call the mental health clinic for you.
We get questions (above) like "where is the cellphone". Now that poster doesn't want an answer - the cops have it and we all know that. The intent is to cause a belief that the cops are covering up more evidence, that they are crooked without acknowledging that of course they won't give that phone to the media.
I really do think, based on only that one link I posted above, that this Angela Corey will get the job done whatever she decides. She seems tough, experienced and willing and able to fight the battle in court. If she never makes a charge it is because the law won't support one; if she charges first degree premeditated hate crime it's because she thinks she can support it. It behooves us all to stop this silly game of second guessing and/or intentionally destroying a man's life until she lets us know what happened that night.
"Call it what you want, he is being punished without proof of a crime if arrested"
You see? Killing someone is not a crime, it's a second amendment right.
Courtesy of Fox news and the NRA.
Chasing a kid with a gun is a-ok as long as you might have a reason....made up in your own mind, even...and then when the kid ends up dead you can blame him!
I would like one person to post here a report of a black man who shot someone and was set free. Has to be KNOWN that the guy shot and killed, but was not arrested for the crime.
And allowed to keep his gun. I can't believe I'm even writing this! The guy gets to keep his gun!
"You see? Killing someone is not a crime, it's a second amendment right."
Now why would you make a statement like that? You have to know that the second amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution … mendmentii) does not give the right to indiscriminately kill. Are you just stirring the pot again or is there a real point to be made here?
Zimmerman has not been charged because a Florida state law says that it is OK to use deadly force if their life is in danger. It has nothing to do with the second amendment, and you have to know that, too.
Zimmerman does not have his gun (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/geo … e-evidence); the police have it. Of course they do; it is primary evidence in a murder investigation and no one could possibly think that he was allowed to keep it. Why would you make such a claim? Are you just stirring the pot again or is there a real point to be made here?
And yes, before you ask that same link indicates that Zimmerman has a valid permit to carry his gun. Whether or not he should have that permit is debatable, but he does have a concealed weapons permit and it will probably remain valid until or unless he is convicted of this crime. Fair enough; a mere suspicion of criminal activity should not be enough to restrict a right granted by the US Constitution.
"Why would you make such a claim? Are you just stirring the pot again or is there a real point to be made here?"
Of course there's a real point, several actually. 1. Stand your ground laws perpetrated in 25 states by NRA and ALEC which are financed by the Koch brothers and their ilk are very poor public policy because they have encouraged a lot of needless shootings which would not have occurred under English common law. 2. Our federal and state legislators in both parties are gutless NRA pull-toys of NRA because they have failed to adopt handgun control laws and enforcement mechanisms covering the manufacture, sale, ownership and use of handguns in this country, consistent with the latest Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. 3. From what I've read and seen on television there is sufficient evidence to indict and try Zimmerman because his aggressive action was not even in compliance with Florida's stand your ground statute.
Again....local crony "justice" has denied the state that ability.
The police decided what they thought was right.....they usurped authority.
Just because one is arrested doesn't mean they sit in jail. Bond can be posted.
Sanford's "justice" system is the bigger issue now. Their evident inability to hold people accountable for their actions is astounding.
Martin's life was taken, and Zimmerman's potential inability to get a job hardly does that justice. In addition, I can see people giving him a job, especially supporters of his cause. (How many of these "supporters" are also racists....I think this percentage is high.) Heck, I guarantee there are outright bigots and black-haters who would proudly want Zimmerman working for them or in their neighborhood. I have come across a few of these here on Hubpages, though not in the forums section per se.
Regarding his innocence....I told you what I would have done. Photos of my battered head would have been shown....I'd be on t.v....the radio...youtube...here on hubpages..sharing my side of the story... I would have debunked everyone's b.s.
Yet....Zimmerman does the exact opposite, and then has people stand in his place. "oh, but you don't know that he told them to do it"...I do know that he told himself, or was told, not to do it...and then someone either volunteered or was voluntold to get out there and to it.
You are right. Zimmerman is definitely guilty of something......it is too bad Sanford can't see it.
I have assumed that the call "from an attorney" that is supposed to have shut down the local cops from an arrest came from a prosecuting attorney. The state, in other words, as such a person has been given the authority, responsibility and duty to make just that sort of decision. Whether or not to prosecute is will within their job description. It could also be a part of the justice "game" that I so detest; a ploy to get Z to make a mistake that they can then use in court to provide more circumstantial or hard evidence. Maybe a misspoken phrase to a TV new reporter...?
Yes, you told me what you would do, just as I told you I would copy Zimmermans actions; disappear from public sight. My reasoning was, and is, that I trust the media only to edit, twist and spin whatever I might say to suit their own purposes. Which are almost certainly not my own.
As far as pictures; do you remember the birth certificate provided by Obama? The one that took only an hour or so to have someone declare was fake? That's exactly what I would expect to happen with any photo, too. It won't match the (2005) pic already provided, it won't suit the expectations of either media or public, and won't represent what Z looked like that night. It would, IMHO, be also declared fake within minutes of being released.
No, Mike, it is impossible to debunk everyone's BS. People will believe whatever they want to, regardless of any evidence. And that's why I would not go public - it wouldn't make one iota of difference to people's beliefs. Except that people generally believe the worst, and after the media got through with my words it would be the worst.
Call me a cynic, call me silly, but I would never trust the media or public in general to accept a truth that did not agree with their current notions. There is just too much greed, too much hate and sadly, too much stupidity in this world.
You seem more concerned about Zimmerman. At least he is alive to defend himself. The media posted pictures from the kid's parent's... Most pick the best pictures of their children when the are killed. And they published the only picture they had of Zimmerman initially. They show a much more positive picture now.
Know many people who fixed their own broken nose have you?
You are doing the opposite of making Zimmerman look bad, you seem to want to saint him. There are always 3 sides to every story...yours, theirs and the truth.
If you think I defend Zimmerman you have misunderstood my entire series of posts. I defend the system and everyone's right to be considered innocent before being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While I find our justice system to be seriously broken and of little real value to society it is still far preferable to mob rule and vigilantism.
That is my problem with this whole forum; the vast majority have decided Zimmerman is guilty without seeing any real evidence. A tragedy occurred and Zimmerman must pay the price whether he is guilty of illegal activity or not. This whole thing has degenerated into a mob rule; a bunch of vigilantes that will extract vengeance without regard to the law or the truth. "The law is an ass" may be absolutely true in this matter, but it is the best we have.
Actually, yes. I have two friends that set their own broken nose (one actually had a friend pull and twist it back around). Both are a little crooked, but are acceptable. When I myself broke two ribs I didn't even visit a doctor; just taped up my chest the best I could. I knew that was all a doc would do and didn't see a reason to pay them to do what I could. I don't find that kind of thing too unusual; those of us without insurance can't always get the care we would like to.
Zimmerman is no saint. Personally, I find him to be a very controlling individual, demanding that everyone around him toe the letter of the law and more. I find him to be just a little "off" mentally by modern standards; his constant demands that everything be just so in "his" neighborhood shows that to me. I doubt that he engaged that boy with the intention of killing him; I think his intent was to delay the kid by conversation until the cops arrived. As stated, he was tired of "them" "getting away" by simply walking away from him. I don't think violence, and certainly not murder, was on his mind that night. From my very limited knowledge of the law, that puts him smack into the concept of involuntary manslaughter. No intention of killing, but his negligent actions were the ultimate cause of Trayvons death. I also think that it is now obvious that he should never have been issued a carry permit; he was not mentally competent to carry a gun.
I'm not a lawyer, though, nor a cop nor a judge. I've had very little contact with our justice system and am not competent to actually make the call whether what happened that night was illegal. Nor do I have any real knowledge of what evidence has been uncovered. I haven't talked to Zimmerman, haven't seen the site, didn't see Zimmerman or Trayvon. I have only the media and public reports that I have, in my mind, sufficient reason to believe are severely twisted and spun.
I have only a desire to see justice done here, and don't find that declarations of guilt by others in exactly the same boat I am in to be that justice. Justice isn't accomplished by mob rule, by editing evidence or by claiming that cops are crooked and it isn't done by smearing the character of a suspect. In our system it is accomplished by proving beyond any reasonable doubt to a jury of peers that a legal crime was committed.
And finally, yes I am concerned about Zimmerman. If I am wrong and he is actually innocent of any legal wrongdoing his life is still down the tubes. Mostly because of the massive public speculation and lies that have been spread about him. He could have moved to a different locale and left that behind him (again, if innocent) and started life somewhere else but that won't be possible now. He will always have to live with the fact he killed a young man but now he will always have people surrounding him "knowing" that he is a murderer. That's not how things are supposed to work.
Now. How many will reply by saying "Good! He deserves that and much more!" thus proving exactly what I'm saying?
by SpanStar5 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one...
by The Medicine Man4 years ago
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor?Why did they believe and not question his account of how their confrontation started?
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
not guilty verdict, the Department of Justice intends to review and decide to further investigate the case in order to determine if Trayvon Martin's civil rights was violated. What is YOUR opinion regarding this?
by SpanStar4 years ago
The 2 representatives who sponsored "The Stand Your Ground Law" have openly and publicly stated that Mister George Zimmerman does not qualify under the statutes of this law. ...
by karl4 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … olice.htmlShould we really be letting killers out on day release, innocent people die because liberal thinkers believe scum like this can be rehabilitated.
by Paul Wingert6 years ago
This piece of work has a history of assault (on a police officer of all things) and has a concealed weapons permit. We all know that this self appointed neiborhood watch captian tracked down, confronted and shot and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.