# The Aftermath of the Trial



## Wake

George Zimmerman was found not guilty. Not guilty, at all. However, being presumed not guilty doesn't make one innocent. Just consider O.J. Simpson. But again, not being guilty could also mean being innocent. So, in the wake of this verdict we're left with quite a bit of anger, emotion, and questions. Instead of arguing one side or another, I feel there are quite a few assertions from both sides that deserve to be refuted. It is my goal in this thread to speak to various points of this tragedy in order to stoke the healing process. We need to absorb the evidence, reflect, and embrace all of our brothers and sisters---no matter the skin color---for the sake of peace and prosperity. This post is a bit long, so I've broken it down into easily-digested segments. Please enjoy! 



*But, George Zimmerman is a racist!* ...is he? To those out there who believe this, I would tell you you've made an assumption. You do not know George Zimmerman. Nor have you ever interacted with him. How can you know what is in his heart, if you consider this? Furthermore, both the grieving parents of Trayvon Martin and (somewhat belatedly) the prosecuting attornies, have said that this was never about race. Also, the FBI in their ongoing investigation even checked GZ's history (and 40 witnesses) to see if he was a racist... they found nothing. Or, that would be the case in a vacuum. Some things did come to light. It was learned that George Zimmerman mentored two young African-American children even though their program had been disbanded. He also dated a black woman and took her to the prom. He even went after Sanford PD when they didn't do enough to help Sherman Ware, a homeless black man who had been beaten up by the son of a white police lieutenant. If a black man was called a racist against white people even though nothing proved it and the contrary showed that he helped them... what could that mean? Furthermore, nothing in the trial ever proved that George was a racist. That could mean he's not a racist. Deep down he may very well be. Or, someone's profiting from racial tensions. It could be true that people have been manipulated into viewing GZ as a racist. Lastly, in an interview of one of GZ's neighbors during the FBI's civil rights investigation: "(Omitted) who is a black female, did not see any racial bias in Zimmerman. He was always very respectful to her." 



*George Zimmerman is innocent.* Well, no, you don't know that for sure. Being presumed not guilty by a jury doesn't mean you're actually innocent. Just as some innocent people have been found guilty of murder, so to have some truly guilty people gotten away with it. If you think being found not guilty means that you're innocent, would you say the same thing about O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony? "Not guilty" and "innocent" are two completely different worlds, and the space between them is vast. Like those who erroneously assume George Zimmerman is a murderous racist, those who proclaim to the heavens that he's as pure and innocent as the new-fallen snow are wrong as well. We ought to qualify our statements. He could be a racist murderer who walked. He could be an innocent man who got put through the media's meat grinder. Thing is, we don't know for sure, so to make baseless assertions like this helps no one and hurts many. There is the notion that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. While that sounds nice, that completely overlooks the fact that, sometimes, wicked people slip through the cracks in the system. Our system has failed in some instances by throwing the book at the innocent and letting the wicked escape justice. Even though our system isn't perfect it's one of the better systems out there. We have no completely accurate way of discerning the liars from the honest. Maybe if a god does exist out there it'll address both the wrongly freed and condemned in due time. What we can't do as responsible human beings is make reckless assumptions.



*It's open season on black boys and men.* If making stupidly unfair and dishonest comments was a criminal offense, a lot of people would be in prison. What you may not know is that it's been "open season" on black men and boys for quite some time, if you consider that 93% of black murder victims are killed by other black people. That's according to the Bureau of Justice's statistics. So, yeah, black people are killing black people. I blame it on some of the culture, the lack of good parents, and rap music that foments hatred, rivalry, and violence. Why do some liberals ignore this? It's as if people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson willfully ignore the cold reality that the worst murderous enemy of black people in America is, well, black people. And that doesn't mean that there are many awesome, kind, and good African-Americans out there. It's just irksome for instigators to say it's open season on black males when a Hispanic man shoots a young black man in self-defense... while ignoring that 93% of all black murder victims have been killed by black people. All of this hyperbole and a half by these racemongers is dishonest, malicious, and wrong. They keep picking, tearing, and slashing at the scab of a wound that's ready and willing to heal if just given the chance. Instead of stirring up hate and tension, we need to love and respect one another, cultures loving, respecting, and working with other cultures for the peace and prosperity of all. I don't say I want equality and peace while seeing racism in everything and making constant accusations. We need to heal this wound, so we need to let it heal. 



*Why all of the gloating and jubilation?* Personally I find it disgusting. This was a tragedy. A young man lost his life, and another man's life will never be the same. There were no heroes or monsters here. And yet there are those who are content to treat this case like a game. Those who do so really don't have the respect or the common sense to be a part of this discussion. And, now that one side has "won," these sore winners are spreading forth their vile in a sort of crude, guttural celebration. To be honest it is and always will be a despicable thing. That's not to say there are sore and whiny "losers," either. Sore winners are even worse than sore losers, because even though they've "won" they can't help but make themselves look grotesque and stupid. I'd say you guys who are doing this should be ashamed of yourselves, because you're fanning the flames just as vigorously as the racemongers. This isn't some game to send a thrill up your leg. It's sad, gloomy, and unfortunate. Have some class, respect, and common human decency, please. By jubilating like cretins, you end up seeming more and more worthy of being called white trash. And, well, that's not a good thing. I expect more from responsible adults.



*The true villains in this story.* People have been poisoning the waters for quite some time. Men like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, as has been said by so many from the Right to the Left, instigate racial animosity. What happens to men like them when we finally have racial peace and equality? One might think they'd have little to no importance then. A point made by some this week is that these guys need to fan the flames to stay relevant. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.... did he race-bait or stir the pot? I don't believe so. No, he did what he could to bring about peace and equality, while fighting against real racism and racial injustice. As they say, never let a crisis go to waste... and a tragedy has indeed been turned into one. Dwelling on it more, it really is something how these people keep picking at this scab. They won't leave it the hell alone. Let it heal! Please, back off and stop stirring it up. People are going to hurt and may even die as a result of these foolish actions. Some say a race war won't happen in America, but it may very well happen in part by these racebaiters/racemongers who---in spite of what they say---end up inciting racial hatred and bitterness. Those African American racemongers who stir up this animosity... they don't take responsibility for their own behavior. Young people are impressionable, and are willing to lap up ideas and notions, even if they haven't reconciled the facts. If they don't acknowledge the evidence, while gulping down lies and hyperbole from those who want violence and hatred, you end up with angry and ignorant young folk like those who riot or protest in the street and rage and gnash their teeth online. People, knowledge is power. The more you know, the more informed you become. And the more informed you are the less likely you are to be manipulated and deceived by people who truly don't have your personal interest at heart.



*George Zimmerman made no mistakes.* Well, no. He may very well have made some mistakes. Even one of the jurors said that he made mistakes. He probably would have been better off if he listened to the 911 caller and didn't follow Martin. However, none of that is illegal. George did have some part in how this tragedy unfolded, so to pretend that he not just innocent, but made no mistakes whatsoever is, in my opinion, dishonest.



*Trayvon Martin was just an unarmed black kid with Skittles.* Really? Just because I'm not armed and have candy in my possession doesn't mean I can't commit illegal and dangerous acts. You can choke people to death unarmed and break faces in with your fists. I don't care if you're wearing a pink leotard and carrying a satchel full of Snickers---you can still hurt or kill people. Though GZ did follow TM a bit, GZ was then retreating to his car, and TM had four minutes to get away. Instead, somehow he came back and attacked George. Martin punched George in the nose, and straddled him while beating/slamming George's head into the concrete. I don't care who you are, what you look like, or what's on you when you're doing this. If you're trying to murder me I'm going to shoot you off. What was George supposed to do? Perhaps he was supposed to wait patiently for another minute or two until he loses consciousness and dies. It may sound sharp, but maybe some liberals and Martin supporters would have rather he died. I say this because as of yet they have said very little about what else George was supposed to do when he was getting assaulted. Concrete is a weapon. If I grab your head and bash you against the hard concrete, could that kill you after a few blows? Martin wasn't unarmed because he had his strong hands and a hard surface to use to snuff out a life. Those who practice martial arts aren't unarmed, either, because bare hand combat can be lethal. So the notion that because this young man had Skittles and didn't carry a weapon then he must be unable to do wrong... is absurd. 



*He was just a punk.* The same impartiality that doesn't rush to condemn GZ also doesn't rush to condemn TM. You don't know this young man---he's not a child but a young man. I don't know Trayvon. Because I don't know him I can't demonize him, because that would be just as wrong and dishonest as those who went way beyond their means to malign George's character. Yes, there are some pictures of his where negative inferences on his nature could be made. Well, so? How many of us didn't do silly or foolish things, or broke the laws and did mischievous things? When I was very young, 15 years old, I had done dumb, reckless and bad things. However, that doesn't make you a bad person. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you a bad person, either. Listening to rap music, knowing how to fight, and taking pictures of yourself doesn't make you horrible, either. Young folk are known to do stupid things. We've all gone through phases, and some of us have grown out of them. Whatever the case is, until you've known Trayvon Martin as deeply as his loving parents, you don't get to demonize him. Same goes for George. None of you even know them; all you know is what's been said or shown on TV. There are no monsters here, or heroes. Neither Trayvon nor George are bad people, and I suspect this tragedy was tragedy that's been blown out of freaking proportion thanks to yours truly---the media and the racemongers. If we want our nation to heal we need to stop getting emotional, stirring the pot, and using hyperbole and deceit to turn people into monsters. Those who truly have peace and harmony on their agenda will try to look at this tragedy with impartiality and objectivity. I feel so badly for both families, and my heart goes out to them.



*The jury was racist.* Absolutely not. This is just another half-digested chunk of food in the vomit of deliberate racebaiting. We have a system in which a man's guilt or non-guilt is determined by a jury of his peers. This held true for Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, and O.J. Simpson. Speaking of O.J., was the jury racist as well when they found him not guilty? Both the prosecution and the defense agreed to these six women, so to stand up and say that their choice was racist is truly galling. Who the hell are you to say this? You weren't there, you didn't reconcile all of the evidence, and you certainly didn't sit in and view all of the happenings in the trial in rapt attention. Either we have a system or we don't. To cry like little children and have selective outrage when a jury frees one non-black man but stay quiet and content when a black man is freed by the same jury system... that shows just how discredited these people are. You didn't see white people protesting the verdict in the O.J. trial. They didn't act like caged animals out to break stuff and hurt people. There weren't any chants of "justice for Nicole and Ron" after the verdict was reached. No one called that jury racist, either. This is just whiny crying for having the ending of their fantasy ripped out of their book. We need to respect the jury, unless we risk obliterating our credibility by being so bold as to then go on a moral crusade against six random jurors who simply followed through on the task the were given by our system. We punish people based on the concreteness of evidence and law, not emotions and anger. Emotion... can cause us to do and say terrible things, and I know this from personal experience. Please, we need to cool our heads and take a break. People don't deserve to be hurt as a result of this verdict, nor property. I wonder what true civil rights leaders like Dr. MLK Jr. would do. I don't know what it would have been like to walk in his shoes, but I imagine he'd pray for peace and tranquility. He was so much more of an honorable man than Al Sharpton. 



*Who doesn't like mocking this thug?* Seriously, knock it off. Like those who mock GZ, I'm asking that people stop mocking this dead young man, too. Just stop it. While you can speak ill of the dead, it's at the risk of hurting your image. Some people get off on viciously mocking Trayvon. It's sickening to hear it. Yeah, TM wasn't 100% faultless, but neither was GZ. All of this vitreol does nothing but spread bitterness, hatred, and ill will. Just stop it, grow up, and show some sort of respect and self-control. If people get hurt or die in part from this mocking and anger, some of that blood is on your hands. 



*George Zimmerman did nothing but tell the truth.* That's doubtful. 90%, probably, but 100%? Unlikely. I read once that one tell of a liar is to move your eyes to your left/upper left when responding. Supposedly doing so is because the part of the brain responsible for creativity (fabrication and deceit as well) is on the left side of your brain. When your eyes move to the right/upper right, that signifies remembrance... recall. Apparently the part of your brain involved in remembering is on your right side as well as, I think, the hypothalamus. That said, there were times when, during his interview with Sean Hannity, his eyes darted to his left when responding to Sean's questions. While I don't know if this is an accurate science, it does carry some weight. I'm sure there are personal experiences in your life as well when you've noticed liars who moved their eyes to their left. So, I'm doubtful Zimmerman was 100% honest. It's possible he lied about some of the things he said, and the tells he gave adds some weight to that notion. 



*We have to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law.* While it's A-OK to want to get rid of laws you disagree with, it makes no sense to want to get rid of SYG as a result of this trial. This case had absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's self defense. If you want some sort of relevant repercussion as a result of this trial, get rid of self defense. I mean, that's what GZ was tried on... not SYG. Wanting to get rid of SYG because of the verdict is like wanting to get rid of border security as a result of Roe v Wade. It makes no sense. And if you were to fight against self defense, as GZ used, good luck. You'll unite the Right and the Left extremely quickly if you do. So, please spare us this nonsensical pining to get rid of something that had absolutely nothing to do with what caused your anger in the first place. I guess it really is true you can't let a crisis go to waste. 



*Black people are just violent and stupid.* In spite of some of the  riots, protests, and violence in the aftermath, this is absolutely untrue. There are many good, kind, decent African American people out there. Some on the deep end of the political Right will spit up their racial hatred towards black people, using TM to say that all black people are stupid ghetto thugs. I hate it, because it's neither fair nor honest. People who act this way are beyond hope, so it's best to simply ignore them as they should be.



*Retaliation.* All of this violence and destruction by those thugs who can't accept a verdict needs to be stopped. This violence is unacceptable, and those who keep fanning the flames need to be held responsible for it as well. If you want to retaliate non-violently, which can be perceived as having a tantrum, that's OK. It doesn't seem to matter to some of these people that there's a mountain of evidence that supports George, so it doesn't really matter what they do so long as people or property isn't harmed. Some of this outrage is whining so palpable you can cut it with a butterknife, and frankly it's getting tiresome. Just now as of 7/18/2013 a congressman named Bobby Rush was on Sean Hannity... and he's the poster boy of butthurt ignorance regarding the verdict. If some of these angry people are as seemingly obtuse and stupid as him, then all of these acts and vows for retaliation maes a bit more sense. Nothing is more dangerous to society than stupid and ignorant people who will not look at the evidence. I bet if dishonesty and unfairness was outlawed, most of them would be locked up. It's so incredibly amusing to see some of these guys twist, distort, and outright ignore the facts and the testimonies. Hopefully they'll burn themselves out and crawl back into their abodes. These ignorant thugs think they can break people and property over a self-defense case they disagree with, regardless of our system. And they wonder why we arm ourselves.



*A call for peace.* We need to not hurt people or property over this verdict. Racebaiting, gloating, and hatred needs to cease. Seeing everything through the lens of race helps no one. Those who rush to judgment need to stop and let our system work. Despicable people like Al Sharpton fan the flames of animosity for their own personal gain; it needs to stop. MLK Jr would be rolling in his grave if he knew how much these new "civil leaders" have been making a mockery out of black Americans. Because of ignorant people like Al who keep raking at the healing scab of race relations, they give normal and decent African Americans a bad name. A jury of his peers rendered a verdict if not guilty. We need to respect our legal process. We need to love our fellow human beings as we love ourselves, and stop insulting the dead and those we don't even know. People need to STOP SAYING THINGS THAT HAVE NO EVIDENCE ATTACHED TO THEM. It's so sickening to have to deal with people like this, because it's so disingenuous and unfair it's like arguing with radical Islamists who deny the Halocaust. We will never have peace if we don't look deep within ourselves and reconcile reality... instead of being blinded with one's emotions, anger, assumptions, and hatred. There is a reason why our legal system is not founded on emotions, but on objective evidence. If having true racial harmony means that civil rights leaders become unnecessary, it is better for society. Now you see civil rights leaders doing as much as they can to stir it all up... I pray for the day that we don't need them any more. Though I never knew MLK Jr. in person, strangely, I miss him. We need men like him who will speak the blind, unbiased truth, and will not speak falsities to placate/incite one group or another. No matter your race, I would ask you to start up social conversations with members of a different race/culture. Make friends. Help one another, and lean on one another. Whether you're black, white, hispanic, Asian, whatever... please, I ask you to try to spark up meaningful and genuine friendships amongst yourselves for the sake of peace and prosperity.


Thoughts from a Simple Man
Your Taxes, Your Beliefs​


----------



## Katzndogz

It's hard to just sit down and respond to all of these opinions in one extra long response post.  I will address just a few.

This case was not a case that turned on the guilt or innocence of anyone.   We know George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.  He admitted it.  This case was one that decided whether or not firing that fatal shot was justified.  The jury's verdict was that the act was justified.

The reason why this case can't be compared to the OJ case is because the OJ case did involve questions of guilt or innocence.   OJ denied being the killer.   He said he didn't do it, someone else did it.  The prosecution could never prove that he committed the acts that led to death beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no issue of whether or not the acts were justified.  The doubt was that it was as reasonable to conclude that someone else killed Goldman and Brown, as it was reasonable to conclude that OJ did it.  With that kind of evidence, the jury has no choice but to acquit.   Just like in the Zimmerman case, once they concluded that Zimmerman was being beaten and felt that he would be beaten to death, the jury had no choice but to acquit.

Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.

There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.   The attacks and vandalism now being played out did not start with Trayvon Martin.  It has been going on for years.  Long, long before the names Martin or Zimmerman were ever heard.  It's an excuse now.  "Bash for Trayvon".   It justifies what they wanted to do and were going to do anyway.

If the sensible black people do not take charge and get a handle on the kind of violence coming from this part of the nation, there is no hope for them.  None at all.   The brush of violence is so broad that it will absolutely paint each and every black person that walks the streets.


----------



## freedombecki

In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.

Also, the state's prime witness reversed her lying court testimony of "Trayvon cried for help and the other guy was on top" to "Trayvon whooped cracka's ass." during her first post trial interview. This female lying is not uncommon in cases in which Al Sharpton inures witnesses repeatedly into the process of decimating a white person for living. He has come to the conclusion that if one is black, one is right, to hell with what the law says. And he somehow surrounds himself with the meconium of purile black persons who are urged to commit perjury against white people. He's full of rancor and hate.

Cases in which Sharpton involved himself: (1) Twanna Brawley lies about unknown white assailants (2) Chrystal Magnum lie about rape (Duke Lacrosse Team)

Black citizens have maggots like Sharpton fooling them, and that's why they get loser syndrome every time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step up to the plate. These men have made themselves disreputable over and over and over. When they take over with their smear campaigns and make everyone indignant, they take a lot of money home with them and live like kings. The nation needs to reconsider perjury laws and enforce them, and quit falling for blackmail threats of incitation of pandemic mob violence. It's time to call bluff and duke it out.

The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors.


----------



## kaz

I didn't read the whole thing because you were saying my view of the case.

I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not, but it was clear there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

Blacks should be outraged at the liberals and the liberal media.  When you ring the doorbell, a dog will bark over and over and over.  Liberals are disrespecting them by trying to turn every case into a race case by ringing the doorbell when no one's at the door.  That race pimps who are black, like Jesse and Weird Al Sharpton do it to themselves is worse.  It'll continue until enough blacks stop barking every time they do that.


----------



## earlycuyler

Katzndogz said:


> It's hard to just sit down and respond to all of these opinions in one extra long response post.  I will address just a few.
> 
> This case was not a case that turned on the guilt or innocence of anyone.   We know George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.  He admitted it.  This case was one that decided whether or not firing that fatal shot was justified.  The jury's verdict was that the act was justified.
> 
> The reason why this case can't be compared to the OJ case is because the OJ case did involve questions of guilt or innocence.   OJ denied being the killer.   He said he didn't do it, someone else did it.  The prosecution could never prove that he committed the acts that led to death beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no issue of whether or not the acts were justified.  The doubt was that it was as reasonable to conclude that someone else killed Goldman and Brown, as it was reasonable to conclude that OJ did it.  With that kind of evidence, the jury has no choice but to acquit.   Just like in the Zimmerman case, once they concluded that Zimmerman was being beaten and felt that he would be beaten to death, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
> 
> Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.   The attacks and vandalism now being played out did not start with Trayvon Martin.  It has been going on for years.  Long, long before the names Martin or Zimmerman were ever heard.  It's an excuse now.  "Bash for Trayvon".   It justifies what they wanted to do and were going to do anyway.
> 
> If the sensible black people do not take charge and get a handle on the kind of violence coming from this part of the nation, there is no hope for them.  None at all.   The brush of violence is so broad that it will absolutely paint each and every black person that walks the streets.



It is against the law to shoot people for being thugs. No crime was being committed when GZ was following him. So for all intents and purposes TM was just a guy being followed by another guy. Its as cowardly and lazy to go on about TM being a " thug in training" as it is to constantly inject race. And the Zimmerman groupies are so happy, and never consider that CCW rights as well as stand your ground laws are in danger and those who want them repealed have their poster boy in GZ.


----------



## Mad Scientist

You can have all the Pointy Headed Intellectual Discussions you want but the whole point of this Trial was to start a Race War so that Martial Law can be implemented. I don't know why Whites haven't fought back, I guess they're even wimpier and more beat down than I had thought.


----------



## Oldstyle

Here's my major problem with the direction this case has taken from the start...

There's very little question that Trayvon Martin gave George Zimmerman a beating before Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him.  It was about as clear cut a case of self defense as I've ever seen yet Martin's actions have been excused because he was "followed".  I'm sorry but since when did following someone at a distance after calling the Police to report suspicious activity become an excuse for assault & battery?

The other thing that has bothered me from the start was the out of control bias that the main stream media showed during the reporting of this case.  From MSNBC's editing of the 9/11 call to make Zimmerman's statements appear to be racially based...to the continued use of old photos of both Zimmerman and Martin to make Zimmerman look more dangerous and Martin look more innocent...to the reluctance of the media to explore who it was that Trayvon Martin *really* was and who George Zimmerman *really* was.  They had a "narrative" that they felt comfortable with and they ignored anything that didn't support that narrative.  That's not what *journalists* are supposed to do.


----------



## Ernie S.

The Aftermath of the Trial

George Zimmerman was found to have acted in self defense. Accordingly, the jury decided there was no crime to be guilty of, period. He is therefore, innocent.

But, George Zimmerman is a racist!

All evidence points to the contrary, but Al Sharpton, Jessi Jackson and all the
other race pimps have to make him out to be racist to retain their relevance.

George Zimmerman is innocent. Well, no,...

Well yes. See above. There was no crime. Mr. Zimmerman laid on his back, taking
a beating from a young black man and screamed for help for the longest 40
seconds of his life. He scooted along the ground to get his head away from the
sidewalk, but could not escape Martin. Then, and only then, did he unholster
his weapon and fire. Had John Good stepped up and pulled Martin off of Mr.
Zimmerman, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Mr. Good, instead opted to
call 911. Prudent? Perhaps, but THIS as much as anything contributed to
Martin's death.

It's open season on black boys and men.

You hit the nail on the head there!

Why all of the gloating and jubilation?

While I'll admit to gloating a bit, what
some are taking for that is dispelling of lies and distortions. I make no
apologies for that.

The true villains in this story.

You forgot to mention Angela Corey who withheld exculpatory evidence and barack
obama who had no business getting involved and further stirring the pot.

George Zimmerman made no mistakes.

Of course he did. Had he stayed in his car, none of this would have happened,
but in order to find out where Martin was, in response to a police question, he
followed. He stopped when told that that was unnecessary.
Zimmerman was armed. Had he not been, Trayvon Martin would be alive, but there
is a distinct possibility that George Zimmerman would be dead.
Zimmerman had a valid CWP issued by the state of Florida so carrying a weapon
was not illegal or imprudent at all.

Trayvon Martin was just an unarmed black kid with Skittles.

Again, spot on!

He was just a punk.

Nude pictures of underage girls, pictures of guns, deleted texts about trying
to procure a gun, about fights he had been in, jewelry taken in a residential
burglary, all information withheld by the prosecution, point to the fact that
young Mr. Martin was in fact a punk.

Yes. We've all gone through phases, but most of us don't assault an armed man.
It's hardly Mr. Zimmerman's fault that Trayvon Martin was "going through a
phase."

The jury was racist.

Bullshit! The jury consisted of 5 white women and one black Hispanic. The jury
was 16.7% black. Blacks were over represented.
As to MLK and what he would do? First thing he would do is slap Al Sharpton and
Jessi Jackson silly.

Who doesn't like mocking this thug?

Few are mocking Martin. Many are disputing him being characterized as a cute 12
year old kid.


George Zimmerman did nothing but tell the truth.

90%? Sounds about right.

We have to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law.

I agree with your assessment.

Black people are just violent and stupid.

Many are. The only ones who can dispel the stereotype are black *parents*.

Retaliation.

Spot on!

A call for peace.

"Though I never knew MLK Jr. in person, strangely, I miss him."

King would hate what has become of his dream.



> I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the
> true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
> men are created equal.'
> 
> I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former
> slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at
> the table of brotherhood.
> 
> I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering
> with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be
> transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
> 
> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where
> they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their
> character.
> 
> I have a dream today.
> 
> I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its
> governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and
> nullification - one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls
> will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and
> brothers.


----------



## Starlight

Good post, Wake. My thoughts are that, Zimmerman was checking out Trayvon, because there had been alot of burglaries involving a young black man in the area, and even tho, it is the consensus now, that color can not be used as a criteria to be suspicious or arrest anyone by their color, it would be useless to be stopping white people instead. The watch program had been started due to the burglaries.  Earlier Trayvon's backpack had been found with 14 pieces of diamond jewelry, including wedding rings, which certainly looks suspicious.

The Stand Your Ground law was not used in this case, so it really doesn't pertain.

The prosecutor should be sued for witholding evidence from the defense. There was obvious bias shown during the trial, and I felt Zimmerman was being railroaded. He was to be found guilty, no matter what had to be done to make that happen. Even after the trial, Pot Holder is still trying to go after Zimmerman. The FBI have files showing there was no racism on Zimmermans part, so looks like a waste of time and money on the part of the DOJ. Too bad there isn't as much effort put forth to solve our loss of employment or debt crises. 

The media, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are firing up the people about this verdict, and if they cause a death because of it, they should be arrested too for inciting violence.


----------



## Katzndogz

George Zimmerman did not take his beating like a good little white guy.  Instead he went all cholo and tapped Martin's ass.


----------



## Sallow

The Zimmerman verdict represents a devolution of the justice system and a return to the notion that "lynching" is okay. This might even become the lynchpin of a second civil rights movement


----------



## Vox

my quick thoughts:

1. case was stirred up by lying media to anger the black electorate so they will vote in November, becasue they were becoming too indifferent.
2. main cause - to aim at guns used in self-defence - never let a crisis to waste.
3. a dreamer cause - provoke riots either way to implement stricter control over populace and take the gun rights away altogether.


=============

on the case:

1. Evidence suggests it was a self-defence situation.
2. Jury and everybody else felt sorry for the loss of the teens life but could not possibly justify sending GZ to prison for 30 years for self-defense - blame stupid mandatory sentencing laws - and REPEAL them!
3. Broader discussion should ensue - that the real life situations and the law are BOTH extremely far from the entertainment world and the movies and that street logic - "I'll teach you a lesson, mothhafakka" may encounter heated self-defense.
No, I do not think TM was a thug in a making. I think he was a teenager disoriented in this world by lack of reasonable parenting and street and gang culture instead of them and therefore his aspirations to act like badd-ass gangsta ( from the entertainment industry glamorized image) caused him to make stupid decisions which lead to death.
4. No, I do not think anybody is going to address #3 and more teens are going to die. Unfortunately.


----------



## Sallow

Katzndogz said:


> George Zimmerman did not take his beating like a good little white guy.  Instead he went all cholo and tapped Martin's ass.



He's okay when he's winning..like when he beat his fiancee. Not sure what happened when Zimmerman went thug on a cop.

But it seems he picked a fight with the wrong kid and had to pussy out and pull a gun.

That might be heroic for some conservatives.


----------



## CultureCitizen

I have lots of qualms on this case. Zimmerman made lots of mistakes : 

The most serious one : play the vigilante on a suspect, based on no evidence. 

It all went wrong when he left the vehicle. They fought , Martin had the upper hand and Gorge answered firing his weapon ( hell , why didn't he carry a tasser for god's sake ).

At the end it was self defense. But if he hadn't taken the vigilante attitude and waited for the police both of them would be alive and well. So it's a real tragedy.

Life inprisionment is too harsh for his imprudence . But walking away with no punisment at all seems wrong too.

Since Zimmerman seems to be a law abidding citizen therefore a sentence of social work seems appropiate for me .


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> King would hate what has become of his dream



I agree.  Blacks using the color of their skin to be whipped into hyper sensitive overreaction to any and all situations which advance the cause of a political party certainly doesn't expand their "freedom."

Blacks today are not free to think on their own or be conservative or libertarian or anything else but liberal Democrat.  They are not free to speak out for or protest anything against liberal causes.  

What freedom is greater than intellectual freedom?  Democrats are right about one thing,  The cause of freedom for blacks is not nearly advance far enough.  And they are the oppressors doing it.  And they do it because they read polls and if 90% of blacks don't continue voting for them, then they are toast.  So they make sure, very sure, that any black who decides he is free to think is destroyed.  Herman Cain, Condie, Thomas, the list goes on.  Colin Powell got it and caved.

It's not going to change anytime soon.   This case was a farce.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Given that GZ didn't commit any crime leading up to the killing, I would have to argue that he was completely innocent. Should he not have followed Martin? Maybe not. But to say he "isn't innocent" is disingenuous. I sat through three weeks of watching the trial via stream, I saw all of the evidence, just as the jury did. 

You know what I came away with? George Zimmerman is not without his flaws, but he was a noble man. He served his community, served as the go to guy for kids needing role models in life. The last thing he wanted to do was kill someone. He may have been a bit overzealous in his actions on that night, but as I can tell he still went by the book. He was headed back to his vehicle.

Trayvon Martin on the other hand, was portrayed by the media as some angel, a treasure of humanity. Well what I saw in that trial was a (pardon my language) thug. There was evidence that did not get submitted which showed him holding a gun. I can't dismiss the pot usage either. I grew up thinking doing drugs were wrong. His propensity for getting into fights was strong. He was almost a grown man, Wake. He was taught the differences between right and wrong, but still in spite of that made his deadly choice.

In situations like these, there is no gray area. There is right and wrong, life and death, guilt and innocence, justice and injustice. An exception may be race, since we are all human. We are all caught making assumptions. But as I sat through that trial with "rapt" attention, I put the puzzle together. There is no place in this for emotion, since Sabryna and Tracy will never get their son back. Zimmerman will never be able to return any semblance of normalcy back to his life. 

I concur that this is not a game. But I leapt for joy when the proper verdict was read. I thought to myself, "is it wrong to celebrate the exoneration of an oft and erroneously vilified figure?" No, I don't believe so. I wanted the media to eat crow. And so they did. I wanted justice to be done, and so it was. For those in America who seek to exact vengeance on innocent people all for the verdict, they should indeed be ashamed of themselves. 

This "No Justice, No Peace" rationale is disturbing. Dr. King would be absolutely appalled by what this nation has become. His dream has been turned into a nightmare by the likes of the media and of Al Sharpton. The shame in all of this, is that even now if King were still alive, his brand, his ideology, his pragmatism... would not fit into the agenda of those on the left or on the right. It would not meld with the race baiting tactics some use to label others.


----------



## Michelle420

I did not follow this trial at all, I read a little bit about it after the verdict. 

Race is not the issue, Media is. There are cases similar to this that never get media coverage regardless of race, gender or sexual preference.

The Jury did it's job.

Stereotyping a behavior based on race is simplistic when you have other factors that contribute to behavior such as Media manipulation and class differences.

People of all races behave differently depending on socio-economic class of the environment they live in.


----------



## asaratis

The defense was not allowed to show evidence implicating Trayvon Martin as a thug, a thief and a drug dealer.  Even with a stacked deck, the prosecution lost the case.  They were trying a case that should not have gone to trial.

The arrest and trial came about because of the efforts of our present President to interject himself (and racism) into the legal process, the expected comments of Jesse Jackson and his like minded brother Al Sharpton, the efforts of the media to increase their market share and the resulting demands of the duped crowd of convenient idiots that believed them.   Despite being tainted by prosecution's illegal actions, the trial ended correctly with acquittal of George Zimmerman who is anything but a racist.

After listening to the words of senile Bobby Rush yesterday, it is apparent to me that the misconceptions and lies about Zimmerman, Trayvon and the trial itself will go on ad infinitum...thanks to Obama, Jesse, Al and other died-in-the-wool race pimps.


----------



## whitehall

It's a long opinion. Probably longer than the prosecution's initial allegations. Why did the prosecution avoid the Grand Jury? They didn't want to jeopardize the case they thought they had by going through normal channels in the justice system? Isn't it a violation of ethics to claim the defendant is guilty after he was found not guilty by a jury? The dirty little secret is that the prosecution took shortcuts in the justice system because the media said Zimmerman was guilty of murder. When you factor the overt and behind the scenes meddling of the federal government any jerkwater lawyer would assume he had a conviction.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Zimmerman did not take his beating like a good little white guy.  Instead he went all cholo and tapped Martin's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's okay when he's winning..like when he beat his fiancee. Not sure what happened when Zimmerman went thug on a cop.
> 
> But it seems he picked a fight with the wrong kid and had to pussy out and pull a gun.
> 
> That might be heroic for some conservatives.
Click to expand...


Sallow's comment shows EXACTLY what's been done to George Zimmerman from the onset of this case!  There is ZERO proof that George Zimmerman ever "beat" his fiancee.  NONE!  Yet, Sallow continues to make the charge.  Same thing with the charge that Zimmerman went "thug" on a cop.  The truth is that George Zimmerman pushed away the arm of an undercover officer...that's the extent of his going thug!  Such a minor thing that the charge was changed to a misdemeanor.

That's what's been done to George Zimmerman from the start of this case.

He didn't "pick a fight" with Trayvon Martin.  Trayvon Martin picked a fight with him.  George Zimmerman isn't an aggressive person.  He just isn't.  He's the guy that takes a boxing class for over a year at his gym but is so bad at it that the instructor still has him punching a heavy bag and won't let him in the ring because he's concerned Zimmerman will get hurt.


----------



## Oldstyle

TemplarKormac said:


> Given that GZ didn't commit any crime leading up to the killing, I would have to argue that he was completely innocent. Should he not have followed Martin? Maybe not. But to say he "isn't innocent" is disingenuous. I sat through three weeks of watching the trial via stream, I saw all of the evidence, just as the jury did.
> 
> You know what I came away with? George Zimmerman is not without his flaws, but he was a noble man. He served his community, served as the go to guy for kids needing role models in life. The last thing he wanted to do was kill someone. He may have been a bit overzealous in his actions on that night, but as I can tell he still went by the book. He was headed back to his vehicle.
> 
> Trayvon Martin on the other hand, was portrayed by the media as some angel, a treasure of humanity. Well what I saw in that trial was a (pardon my language) thug. There was evidence that did not get submitted which showed him holding a gun. I can't dismiss the pot usage either. I grew up thinking doing drugs were wrong. His propensity for getting into fights was strong. He was almost a grown man, Wake. He was taught the differences between right and wrong, but still in spite of that made his deadly choice.
> 
> In situations like these, there is no gray area. There is right and wrong, life and death, guilt and innocence, justice and injustice. An exception may be race, since we are all human. We are all caught making assumptions. But as I sat through that trial with "rapt" attention, I put the puzzle together. There is no place in this for emotion, since Sabryna and Tracy will never get their son back. Zimmerman will never be able to return any semblance of normalcy back to his life.
> 
> I concur that this is not a game. But I leapt for joy when the proper verdict was read. I thought to myself, "is it wrong to celebrate the exoneration of an oft and erroneously vilified figure?" No, I don't believe so. I wanted the media to eat crow. And so they did. I wanted justice to be done, and so it was. For those in America who seek to exact vengeance on innocent people all for the verdict, they should indeed be ashamed of themselves.
> 
> This "No Justice, No Peace" rationale is disturbing. Dr. King would be absolutely appalled by what this nation has become. His dream has been turned into a nightmare by the likes of the media and of Al Sharpton. The shame in all of this, is that even now if King were still alive, his brand, his ideology, his pragmatism... would not fit into the agenda of those on the left or on the right. It would not meld with the race baiting tactics some use to label others.



One wonders what Dr. King would think about people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson turning civil rights into highly compensated "careers".  My guess is that he'd be appalled.


----------



## Redfish

If Zimmerman had been black or Martin white, this case would never have gotten any media attention and probably would have been thrown out by the grand jury for lack of evidence.

This case was a media creation encouraged by our racist president and his racist atty general.

Its all part of the leftist agenda to divide the country by race, sex, age, income, ethnicity, location, and anything else they can come up with.   A divided nation is much easier to conquer---and make no mistake, the left is trying to conquer the USA and turn it into a copy of failed european socialism.

Obama's agenda is even more dangerous.   He and his wife are determined to punish this nation for its past successes (that they wrongly think were at the expense of someone else) and to get even for slavery and the discriminations of the past.

Its really really sad because as the first black president he could have been a real uniter.   

MLK is crying as he watches his dream evaporate to the marxist collectivists that currently run the country.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Zimmerman did not take his beating like a good little white guy.  Instead he went all cholo and tapped Martin's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's okay when he's winning..like when he beat his fiancee. Not sure what happened when Zimmerman went thug on a cop.
> 
> But it seems he picked a fight with the wrong kid and had to pussy out and pull a gun.
> 
> That might be heroic for some conservatives.
Click to expand...



"he picked a fight with the wrong kid..." 

...just as Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman tried to kill poor OJ.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

CultureCitizen said:


> I have lots of qualms on this case. Zimmerman made lots of mistakes :
> 
> The most serious one : play the vigilante on a suspect, based on no evidence.
> 
> It all went wrong when he left the vehicle. They fought , Martin had the upper hand and Gorge answered firing his weapon ( hell , why didn't he carry a tasser for god's sake ).
> 
> At the end it was self defense. But if he hadn't taken the vigilante attitude and waited for the police both of them would be alive and well. So it's a real tragedy.
> 
> Life inprisionment is too harsh for his imprudence . But walking away with no punisment at all seems wrong too.
> 
> Since Zimmerman seems to be a law abidding citizen therefore a sentence of social work seems appropiate for me .





"They fought ,"


There's you problem, right there.


----------



## Redfish

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Zimmerman did not take his beating like a good little white guy.  Instead he went all cholo and tapped Martin's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's okay when he's winning..like when he beat his fiancee. Not sure what happened when Zimmerman went thug on a cop.
> 
> But it seems he picked a fight with the wrong kid and had to pussy out and pull a gun.
> 
> That might be heroic for some conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sallow's comment shows EXACTLY what's been done to George Zimmerman from the onset of this case!  There is ZERO proof that George Zimmerman ever "beat" his fiancee.  NONE!  Yet, Sallow continues to make the charge.  Same thing with the charge that Zimmerman went "thug" on a cop.  The truth is that George Zimmerman pushed away the arm of an undercover officer...that's the extent of his going thug!  Such a minor thing that the charge was changed to a misdemeanor.
> 
> That's what's been done to George Zimmerman from the start of this case.
> 
> He didn't "pick a fight" with Trayvon Martin.  Trayvon Martin picked a fight with him.  George Zimmerman isn't an aggressive person.  He just isn't.  He's the guy that takes a boxing class for over a year at his gym but is so bad at it that the instructor still has him punching a heavy bag and won't let him in the ring because he's concerned Zimmerman will get hurt.
Click to expand...


I am sure that by now you have realized that sallow is nothing but a bitter talking point parrot.  he is not worthy of wasting any of your time on.   pay him no mind.   he is an idiot.


----------



## A_LittleFeisty

American Communist said:


> You can have all the Pointy Headed Intellectual Discussions you want but the whole point of this Trial was to start a Race War so that Martial Law can be implemented. I don't know why Whites haven't fought back, I guess they're even wimpier and more beat down than I had thought.



I look at it this way. When there is a hate crime committed against a white person the DOJ will not even look at it. They will only look at hate crimes that a white commits agents a minority. This is sending a message to white people that they need to walk on eggshells. The reason I say walking on eggshells is because a lot of white people are afraid to say the wrong thing because they could be labeled as a raciest just because someone was not happy with something you said. I will give you a real good example. One of the girls I worked with brought in some vacation pictures, we were all looking at them and enjoying the stories behind them. She showed a picture of her mother and her on the beach. I made a comment " I am so jealous the 2 of you have such a beautiful tan." I thought it was an innocent comment. The girl took my comment to HR and I was brought up on racial charges. There was no way for me to fight it. No matter what I said I was wrong. I asked why it was wrong to say someone had a great tan. I was told that I had to guard my words and actions because what I said was taken as offensive by the other girl.


----------



## thanatos144

George was innocent and yes being found not guilty means that in a self defense case. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with stand your ground and to insert that in this shows the truth about the agenda...The agenda being nothing about this young black man acting stupid and everything about using his body to push against a law that is used MOSTLY by black people.


----------



## wavingrl

Looks interesting. I'll be back later. 

Dividing my time between the prolific weeds and the internet.


----------



## Derideo_Te

In the end the American Injustice system failed in my opinion. It would have been as much of an injustice to put away a gun toting fool like GZ behind bars for decades as it was to find him entirely not guilty. He acted stupidly and now an innocent person is dead. For there to be no penalty at all for that is morally and ethically wrong and a complete travesty of justice. That is my 2 cents worth on this sordid affair.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Zimmerman did not take his beating like a good little white guy.  Instead he went all cholo and tapped Martin's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's okay when he's winning..like when he beat his fiancee. Not sure what happened when Zimmerman went thug on a cop.
> 
> But it seems he picked a fight with the wrong kid and had to pussy out and pull a gun.
> 
> That might be heroic for some conservatives.
Click to expand...


Those charges were dropped. There was a mutual restraining order placed by the both of them.

Despite everything you've heard and seen, you make these prevaricated contentions. I would wager since you are anti-Gun that if you were in a similar situation, you would either be in critical condition from the pounding you took, or dead.

For liberals, lying is heroic. The truth dare not show it's face.


----------



## testarosa

Sallow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Zimmerman did not take his beating like a good little white guy.  Instead he went all cholo and tapped Martin's ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's okay when he's winning..like when he beat his fiancee. Not sure what happened when Zimmerman went thug on a cop.
> 
> But it seems he picked a fight with the wrong kid and had to pussy out and pull a gun.
> 
> That might be heroic for some conservatives.
Click to expand...


That wasn't a very constructive response to the OP, Teeth.   I'll demonstrate a constructive response for ya when I get back from weekend boat and mojitos.  

I'm on injustice overload...  Looking at you Eric Holder.


----------



## thanatos144

Derideo_Te said:


> In the end the American Injustice system failed in my opinion. It would have been as much of an injustice to put away a gun toting fool like GZ behind bars for decades as it was to find him entirely not guilty. He acted stupidly and now an innocent person is dead. For there to be no penalty at all for that is morally and ethically wrong and a complete travesty of justice. That is my 2 cents worth on this sordid affair.



Other then Trayvin being black and you can use him to make yourself seem better then the rest why do you care?


----------



## testarosa

drifter said:


> I did not follow this trial at all, I read a little bit about it after the verdict.
> 
> Race is not the issue, Media is. There are cases similar to this that never get media coverage regardless of race, gender or sexual preference.
> 
> The Jury did it's job.
> 
> Stereotyping a behavior based on race is simplistic when you have other factors that contribute to behavior such as Media manipulation and class differences.
> 
> People of all races behave differently depending on socio-economic class of the environment they live in.



You may want to get Al and Jesse on the horn about that race not being the issue thing.


----------



## Katzndogz

obama just doubled down on stupid.   "Trayvon Martin could have been me".   Is he admitting to being a street thug, or what?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Katzndogz said:


> obama just doubled down on stupid.   "Trayvon Martin could have been me".   Is he admitting to being a street thug, or what?



He mentioned how the family of Trayvon Martin "handled this with dignity and grace." I'm sorry, how ignorant can one person be?


----------



## Gadawg73

Any time the power and the vast resources of government are used against someone because of public and media pressure instead of probable cause through an indictment from a grand jury of citizens and the facts and evidence show an abuse of those prosecutorial powers was used every freedom loving citizen should be jubilant a common citizen like Zimmerman has prevailed against the tyranny of the state.


----------



## Vox

Derideo_Te said:


> In the end the American Injustice system failed in my opinion. It would have been as much of an injustice to put away a gun toting fool like GZ behind bars for decades as it was to find him entirely not guilty. He acted stupidly and now an innocent person is dead. For there to be no penalty at all for that is morally and ethically wrong and a complete travesty of justice. That is my 2 cents worth on this sordid affair.




Tell me when and where progressives are going to start protesting against mandatory sentencing.

oh, they are not? that is what I thought.


----------



## Gadawg73

I can not fault the Martin family for anything.
Emotions get high when you lose a child even if he was not a model child.
Just as the entire case against Zimmerman was rank speculation everything we may think and believe about the Martin family is the same.
Peace to them as they appear to be good people. 
Normal folk want heads on platters when their child is shot and killed self defense or not.


----------



## testarosa

Katzndogz said:


> obama just doubled down on stupid.   "Trayvon Martin could have been me".   Is he admitting to being a street thug, or what?



He did!  What the fuck?

Stupid layered upon stupid.  The guy doesn't know when the hell to stfu.

Someone tell me what their motivation is if it is not to incite this divide as far as they can make it go.  Guns and race all on the back of one incident that was not even a racial incident.   

Political agenda at it's most despicable.   At least put a little cover on it so it's not so transparent and offensive.

Kiss a couple freedoms goodbye.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

> However, being presumed not guilty doesn't make one innocent.


One is NOT presumed "not guilty."

One is PRESUMED INNOCENT.

And that presumption remains intact after the State tries you and fails to sustain its burden of proof.

It is true that a person acquitted might nevertheless have done the deed.  Take OJ the double murderer, for example.

But OJ was acquitted DESPITE the clear compelling PROOF of his guilt.

Zimmerman, by contrast, was acquitted *because* there was simply NO proof of his guilt.  

That is not a subtle difference.

OJ was guilty but acquitted.  Zimmerman was innocent AND acquitted.


----------



## Gadawg73

The media conned the public with the 6th grade photo and the press conferences with the family fraud lawyer Crump. Dumbass public took their marching orders from him and believed what he said.
Media lied when they claimed Zimmerman was ordered and commanded to stand down by police.
They doctored the 911 call.
They blew up the DNA evidence to make it appear it was conclusive as to guilt. Amazing the dumb masses bought that whopper.
And the dumb masses believed Zimmerman was guilty, picked sides and had their naive and gullible minds made up BEFORE THE FIRST WITNESS TESTIFIED AND FIRST PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED.
Because they are ignorant.
Once the trial started and the media fraud was exposed they had egg on their face.
To this date they will not admit they bought the media case hook line and sinker and what the media told them was false.


----------



## Gadawg73

Until the low  information citizen admits he is ignorant as to the law and is willing to learn and understand the foundation of the rights of the accused in this great nation he needs to keep his pie hole shut.
He has made a damn fool of himself and a mockery to the American judicial system which has at its foundation trial by jury and the 100% burden of proof on the government.


----------



## The Rabbi

CultureCitizen said:


> I have lots of qualms on this case. Zimmerman made lots of mistakes :
> 
> The most serious one : play the vigilante on a suspect, based on no evidence.
> 
> It all went wrong when he left the vehicle. They fought , Martin had the upper hand and Gorge answered firing his weapon ( hell , why didn't he carry a tasser for god's sake ).
> 
> At the end it was self defense. But if he hadn't taken the vigilante attitude and waited for the police both of them would be alive and well. So it's a real tragedy.
> 
> Life inprisionment is too harsh for his imprudence . But walking away with no punisment at all seems wrong too.
> 
> Since Zimmerman seems to be a law abidding citizen therefore a sentence of social work seems appropiate for me .



The only mistake Zimmerman made was not having his gun out sooner.  When Trayvon approached him and asked if he had a problem, the gun should have been in his hand.  He should never have let Trayvon get that close.
There was no "vigilante" going on.  Zimmerman was a concerned citizen worried about a community that had had numerous break ins.  He did not follow Trayvon.  He couldn't see Trayvon and wanted to see where he had gone to.  That isnt following.
The constant mischaracterization of people here and in the media is unconscionable.  People are OK with dead victims, which Zimmerman would have been without a gun.  They aren't OK with victims who fight back.


----------



## The Rabbi

PoliticalChic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zimmerman verdict represents a devolution of the justice system and a return to the notion that "lynching" is okay. This might even become the lynchpin of a second civil rights movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't imagine that there is any cure for you infection.
Click to expand...


Putting him on Ignore works for me.


----------



## earlycuyler

Gadawg73 said:


> Until the low  information citizen admits he is ignorant as to the law and is willing to learn and understand the foundation of the rights of the accused in this great nation he needs to keep his pie hole shut.
> He has made a damn fool of himself and a mockery to the American judicial system which has at its foundation trial by jury and the 100% burden of proof on the government.



This whole thing was nothing but fodder for low information voters. What I find odd is that the NRA never spoke to loud in GZ's defense. They went right to stand your ground. Now, the low information voters will likely see an attempt made to have SYG repealed.  This is already happening.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Zimmerman was getting the hell beat out of him and defended himself. What more needs to be said?


----------



## TemplarKormac

earlycuyler said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the low  information citizen admits he is ignorant as to the law and is willing to learn and understand the foundation of the rights of the accused in this great nation he needs to keep his pie hole shut.
> He has made a damn fool of himself and a mockery to the American judicial system which has at its foundation trial by jury and the 100% burden of proof on the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing was nothing but fodder for low information voters. What I find odd is that the NRA never spoke to loud in GZ's defense. They went right to stand your ground. Now, the low information voters will likely see an attempt made to have SYG repealed.  This is already happening.
Click to expand...


But people fail to realize that this case wasn't about SYG. It was about self-defense! If they wish to repeal self defense laws, in that case, they can do so at their own peril.


----------



## earlycuyler

Matthew said:


> Zimmerman was getting the hell beat out of him and defended himself. What more needs to be said?



Lots. In Florida, the laws are to vague. In Texas, Zimmermans shooting would not have been justified, and Texas is pretty liberal with the standards for shooting folks. Politics and race is what got dude off. This is you ain't seeing all the hoopla supporting George Zimmerman. They are wisely looking towards the day they will have to defend SYG.


----------



## earlycuyler

TemplarKormac said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the low  information citizen admits he is ignorant as to the law and is willing to learn and understand the foundation of the rights of the accused in this great nation he needs to keep his pie hole shut.
> He has made a damn fool of himself and a mockery to the American judicial system which has at its foundation trial by jury and the 100% burden of proof on the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing was nothing but fodder for low information voters. What I find odd is that the NRA never spoke to loud in GZ's defense. They went right to stand your ground. Now, the low information voters will likely see an attempt made to have SYG repealed.  This is already happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But people fail to realize that this case wasn't about SYG. It was about self-defense! If they wish to repeal self defense laws, in that case, they can do so at their own peril.
Click to expand...


No, this was about politics and race, bumper stickers, T-shirts and campaign slogans as well as money on the backs of a dead teenager and some guy who's life isn't worth a plug nickle now.


----------



## Pheonixops

Katzndogz said:


> It's hard to just sit down and respond to all of these opinions in one extra long response post.  I will address just a few.
> 
> This case was not a case that turned on the guilt or innocence of anyone.   We know George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.  He admitted it.  This case was one that decided whether or not firing that fatal shot was justified.  The jury's verdict was that the act was justified.
> 
> The reason why this case can't be compared to the OJ case is because the OJ case did involve questions of guilt or innocence.   OJ denied being the killer.   He said he didn't do it, someone else did it.  The prosecution could never prove that he committed the acts that led to death beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no issue of whether or not the acts were justified.  The doubt was that it was as reasonable to conclude that someone else killed Goldman and Brown, as it was reasonable to conclude that OJ did it.  With that kind of evidence, the jury has no choice but to acquit.   Just like in the Zimmerman case, once they concluded that Zimmerman was being beaten and felt that he would be beaten to death, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
> 
> Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.   The attacks and vandalism now being played out did not start with Trayvon Martin.  It has been going on for years.  Long, long before the names Martin or Zimmerman were ever heard.  It's an excuse now.  "Bash for Trayvon".   It justifies what they wanted to do and were going to do anyway.
> 
> *If the sensible black people do not take charge and get a handle on the kind of violence coming from this part of the nation, there is no hope for them.  None at all.   The brush of violence is so broad that it will absolutely paint each and every black person that walks the streets.*



We are all Americans, we are all  individuals, we are supposed to be responsible for ourselves and our families first and foremost. I'm not responsible for you and it would be stupid for me to hold you responsible for the actions of someone else that you are not associated with. It would be akin to me blaming you for the actions of white criminals and telling you that you should get a handle on them.
The best thing people of ANY race should do, is be responsible for themselves and their family, and to let their own individual "light" shine by showing kindness, compassion, and respect for their fellow "man".


----------



## nodoginnafight

Matthew said:


> Zimmerman was getting the hell beat out of him and defended himself. What more needs to be said?



Who started the fight


----------



## TemplarKormac

earlycuyler said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing was nothing but fodder for low information voters. What I find odd is that the NRA never spoke to loud in GZ's defense. They went right to stand your ground. Now, the low information voters will likely see an attempt made to have SYG repealed.  This is already happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But people fail to realize that this case wasn't about SYG. It was about self-defense! If they wish to repeal self defense laws, in that case, they can do so at their own peril.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this was about politics and race, bumper stickers, T-shirts and campaign slogans as well as money on the backs of a dead teenager and some guy who's life isn't worth a plug nickle now.
Click to expand...


That's the whole problem. Who are we to determine the value of life?


----------



## earlycuyler

TemplarKormac said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> But people fail to realize that this case wasn't about SYG. It was about self-defense! If they wish to repeal self defense laws, in that case, they can do so at their own peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, this was about politics and race, bumper stickers, T-shirts and campaign slogans as well as money on the backs of a dead teenager and some guy who's life isn't worth a plug nickle now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the whole problem. Who are we to determine the value of life?
Click to expand...

 
Tis a tough one with life having so little value thees days.


----------



## TemplarKormac

earlycuyler said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, this was about politics and race, bumper stickers, T-shirts and campaign slogans as well as money on the backs of a dead teenager and some guy who's life isn't worth a plug nickle now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the whole problem. Who are we to determine the value of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tis a tough one with life having so little value thees days.
Click to expand...


Good response.


----------



## Pheonixops

freedombecki said:


> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> Also, the state's prime witness reversed her lying court testimony of "Trayvon cried for help and the other guy was on top" to "Trayvon whooped cracka's ass." during her first post trial interview. This female lying is not uncommon in cases in which Al Sharpton inures witnesses repeatedly into the process of decimating a white person for living. He has come to the conclusion that if one is black, one is right, to hell with what the law says. And he somehow surrounds himself with the meconium of purile black persons who are urged to commit perjury against white people. He's full of rancor and hate.
> 
> Cases in which Sharpton involved himself: (1) Twanna Brawley lies about unknown white assailants (2) Chrystal Magnum lie about rape (Duke Lacrosse Team)
> 
> *Black citizens have maggots like Sharpton fooling them, and that's why they get loser syndrome every time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step up to the plate.* These men have made themselves disreputable over and over and over. When they take over with their smear campaigns and make everyone indignant, they take a lot of money home with them and live like kings. The nation needs to reconsider perjury laws and enforce them, and quit falling for blackmail threats of incitation of pandemic mob violence. It's time to call bluff and duke it out.
> 
> *The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors.*



I disagree with your assertion; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?

What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support?  Is federal support solely for Black people?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pheonixops said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> Also, the state's prime witness reversed her lying court testimony of "Trayvon cried for help and the other guy was on top" to "Trayvon whooped cracka's ass." during her first post trial interview. This female lying is not uncommon in cases in which Al Sharpton inures witnesses repeatedly into the process of decimating a white person for living. He has come to the conclusion that if one is black, one is right, to hell with what the law says. And he somehow surrounds himself with the meconium of purile black persons who are urged to commit perjury against white people. He's full of rancor and hate.
> 
> Cases in which Sharpton involved himself: (1) Twanna Brawley lies about unknown white assailants (2) Chrystal Magnum lie about rape (Duke Lacrosse Team)
> 
> *Black citizens have maggots like Sharpton fooling them, and that's why they get loser syndrome every time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step up to the plate.* These men have made themselves disreputable over and over and over. When they take over with their smear campaigns and make everyone indignant, they take a lot of money home with them and live like kings. The nation needs to reconsider perjury laws and enforce them, and quit falling for blackmail threats of incitation of pandemic mob violence. It's time to call bluff and duke it out.
> 
> *The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I find that pretty ignorant and insulting; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?*
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support?  Is federal support solely for Black people?
Click to expand...


Given their reaction towards the verdict? All of them. And as for thinking for themselves, that remains yet to be seen.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

The George Zimmerman trial has highlighted some things that I think are some of the most destructive things within our society today and we MUST deal with them if we are to survive.  Will we?  Not as long as there are screams and finger pointing and attempts to label calmer heads on both ends of the political spectrum with labels.  RACIST!  Because that term is used so much it has no meaning to me anymore.  If you can be a racist simply for not agreeing with the Obama administration, then attempting to label someone a racist because they think George Zimmerman is innocent is innocuous and unimportant.

I NEVER thought George Zimmerman was a bad person.  I think he was incredibly stupid.  Do I take his side?  No, I think he ought to have his butt kicked for putting himself in such a situation.  Should he go to jail?  Not for this situation because the jury has found him not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of Murder 2!  The whole process was ignorant and I have always believed that they should have went for Manslaughter 2 (no criminal intent).  Since he's been found not guilty, the constitution protects George Zimmerman from further prosecution just like everyone else.

I NEVER thought that Trayvon Martin was a bad person either.  Incredibly stupid as well.  Someone who was full of his own 'juice' and who thought he was bullet proof like most teenagers.  Well, I guess we found out that he wasn't.  Combine these two idiots and you've created a perfect storm of ignorance that resulted in tragic circumstances.

What I get tired of is those who speak as though they are the end-all authority on something and you MUST get into line with their way of thinking or we're going to label you. Well guess what?  I don't get in line.  I make up my own mind and I speak it.  If you don't like it or don't want to hear it, you know where the door is.  Take your labels with you.

I keep hearing that we have to have an 'honest dialogue' concerning guns, race and justice.  Fine, you come to the table with your labels in check and I'll listen to your concerns.  I don't "buy in" just because you think I should...


----------



## Survivalist

What you and the press, and especially the Trayvon supporters did not talk about was that Trayvon was a thug.  Kicked out of school for fighting, caught with stolen items, acting like a gangsta online and on film---basically abborant behavior.

Imagine if there was even ONE shread of evidence of Zimmerman doing any of these similar bad things, he would have been crucified for them.

When people start holding everyone to the same behavioral standards, America can move forward.  But that won't happen.


----------



## The Rabbi

earlycuyler said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was getting the hell beat out of him and defended himself. What more needs to be said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots. In Florida, the laws are to vague. In Texas, Zimmermans shooting would not have been justified, and Texas is pretty liberal with the standards for shooting folks. Politics and race is what got dude off. This is you ain't seeing all the hoopla supporting George Zimmerman. They are wisely looking towards the day they will have to defend SYG.
Click to expand...


Bulloney. Florida's laws are very clear.  Texas' are even clearer.  If this had happened in New Jersey Zimmerman would still have been acquitted.


----------



## waltky

Obviously, you have a passion for the topic...

... Me?  Obviously the cops had the right idea when they didn't want to charge him to begin with...

... a case of self-defense if there ever was one...

... and the jury got it right.


----------



## PredFan

Putting my opinion on this, and some of it might agree, some might not.

*But, George Zimmerman is a racist!*

No. Anyone who is honest would know that he is not.

*George Zimmerman is innocent.*

Yes, he is. we are all innocent until proven guilty. Not only did the prosecution fail to prove he was lying, all of the forensic evidence and much of the testimony from witnesses and expert witnesses, even those for the prosecution, support Zimmerman's story.

*It's open season on black boys and men.*

It might be. 11,000 black men have been killed since Trayvon Martin died. The overwhelming majority have been killed by other black men. Maybe there is.

*Why all of the gloating and jubilation?*

My gloating is directed at the liberals who wanted to lynch GZ from the very start. Before they had any knowledge of the case at all. And there are still so many who refuse to educate themselves. That isn't disgusting at all.

*The true villains in this story.*

You are correct. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the villains in this story. They are the villains in any story they inject their racist asses in.

*George Zimmerman made no mistakes.*

Correct.

*Trayvon Martin was just an unarmed black kid with Skittles.*

Yes, an unarmed black kid who committed felonious assault and got shot for it. 


*He was just a punk.*

Yeah, he was.

*The jury was racist.*

Absurd.

*Who doesn't like mocking this thug?*

It isn't mocking him to point out the facts.

*George Zimmerman did nothing but tell the truth.*

I have no doubt that he told the truth to the best of his ability. On the night it happened, a Sanford detective investigating the shooting lied to Zimmerman saying: "You know we have a security camera video that recorded the whole thing so we will know if you are lying." Zimmerman's response was: "Thank God!"


*We have to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law.*

People who say this are either: 1. Ignorant of the facts, 2. Ignorant of the law, 3. Following in the footsteps of the corrupt politicians and using this incident to attack the rights of innocent Americans. Probably all three.

*Black people are just violent and stupid.*

Really? Is anyone saying that? I doubt more than one  fringe nutjob.



*Retaliation.*

This is just an excuse to act out and destroy things.


*A call for peace.*

You'd have to demand that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Hussein Obama, and Eric Holder shut up. Not going to happen.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

PredFan said:


> Putting my opinion on this, and some of it might agree, some might not.
> 
> *But, George Zimmerman is a racist!*
> 
> No. Anyone who is honest would know that he is not.
> 
> *George Zimmerman is innocent.*
> 
> Yes, he is. we are all innocent until proven guilty. Not only did the prosecution fail to prove he was lying, all of the forensic evidence and much of the testimony from witnesses and expert witnesses, even those for the prosecution, support Zimmerman's story.
> 
> *It's open season on black boys and men.*
> 
> It might be. 11,000 black men have been killed since Trayvon Martin died. The overwhelming majority have been killed by other black men. Maybe there is.
> 
> *Why all of the gloating and jubilation?*
> 
> My gloating is directed at the liberals who wanted to lynch GZ from the very start. Before they had any knowledge of the case at all. And there are still so many who refuse to educate themselves. That isn't disgusting at all.
> 
> *The true villains in this story.*
> 
> You are correct. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the villains in this story. They are the villains in any story they inject their racist asses in.
> 
> *George Zimmerman made no mistakes.*
> 
> Correct.
> 
> *Trayvon Martin was just an unarmed black kid with Skittles.*
> 
> Yes, an unarmed black kid who committed felonious assault and got shot for it.
> 
> 
> *He was just a punk.*
> 
> Yeah, he was.
> 
> *The jury was racist.*
> 
> Absurd.
> 
> *Who doesn't like mocking this thug?*
> 
> It isn't mocking him to point out the facts.
> 
> *George Zimmerman did nothing but tell the truth.*
> 
> I have no doubt that he told the truth to the best of his ability. On the night it happened, a Sanford detective investigating the shooting lied to Zimmerman saying: "You know we have a security camera video that recorded the whole thing so we will know if you are lying." Zimmerman's response was: "Thank God!"
> 
> 
> *We have to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law.*
> 
> People who say this are either: 1. Ignorant of the facts, 2. Ignorant of the law, 3. Following in the footsteps of the corrupt politicians and using this incident to attack the rights of innocent Americans. Probably all three.
> 
> *Black people are just violent and stupid.*
> 
> Really? Is anyone saying that? I doubt more than one  fringe nutjob.
> 
> 
> 
> *Retaliation.*
> 
> This is just an excuse to act out and destroy things.
> 
> 
> *A call for peace.*
> 
> You'd have to demand that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Hussein Obama, and Eric Holder shut up. Not going to happen.



^^^^^


----------



## freedombecki

American Communist said:


> You can have all the Pointy Headed Intellectual Discussions you want but the whole point of this Trial was to start a Race War so that Martial Law can be implemented. I don't know why Whites haven't fought back, I guess they're even wimpier and more beat down than I had thought.


That's hardly the case. People are trying to make a living. They've had their taxes raised, health insurance costs throuogh the roof, gasoline prices tripled with no end in sight, the national debt going higher than planetary probes, and Bill of Rights attacked, their religion dissed, threats to implement another religion's tenets in this hemisphere, and threats to have American children exposed to adult European sex mores, attitudes, etc. People are cross at the government and they're mad. But they have to pay their bills because they haven't been spoonfed taking something for nothing their whole lives, and now, it's working against them by those who haven't, and paying through the roof for other people's abortions, multiple illegitimate babies, and prisoner/government bureaucrat sex changes is going down worse than raw rotted liver. Bleah!


----------



## tyroneweaver

pre trial I wondered why if zimmerman called 911 and the calvary was on the way why he couldn't hold out a little longer until help arrived


post trial: with the involvement of obama and holder  I am thrilled at the verdict.


----------



## freedombecki

Sallow said:


> The Zimmerman verdict represents a devolution of the justice system and a return to the notion that "lynching" is okay. This might even become the lynchpin of a second civil rights movement


 This had nothing to do with lynching, except for what Trayvon told Zimmerman he was going to do--kill him for watching him case houses.

The police said it was self defense based on the wounds matching up to Zimmerman's testimony to them of the events leading up to the fatal shooting. The police forensics specialist also said Trayvon was the party on top due to the blousing of his clothing while beating Zimmerman up when he was down.

The interference of Sharpton and Jackson was not appreciated, but the defense placated them by pretending it was a racially-based hate crime, which was as far from the truth as one of Barack Obama's promises that never materializes although higher gas prices and taxes do.

Grrrrrr!


----------



## Michelle420

testarosa said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not follow this trial at all, I read a little bit about it after the verdict.
> 
> Race is not the issue, Media is. There are cases similar to this that never get media coverage regardless of race, gender or sexual preference.
> 
> The Jury did it's job.
> 
> Stereotyping a behavior based on race is simplistic when you have other factors that contribute to behavior such as Media manipulation and class differences.
> 
> People of all races behave differently depending on socio-economic class of the environment they live in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to get Al and Jesse on the horn about that race not being the issue thing.
Click to expand...


No Need, the media makes a profit for showcasing divisions in class, race, gender and sexuality it's a big business. All I have to do is not buy into it, pretty simple.


----------



## Ernie S.

CultureCitizen said:


> I have lots of qualms on this case. Zimmerman made lots of mistakes :
> 
> The most serious one : play the vigilante on a suspect, based on no evidence.
> 
> It all went wrong when he left the vehicle. They fought , Martin had the upper hand and Gorge answered firing his weapon ( hell , why didn't he carry a tasser for god's sake ).
> 
> At the end it was self defense. But if he hadn't taken the vigilante attitude and waited for the police both of them would be alive and well. So it's a real tragedy.
> 
> Life inprisionment is too harsh for his imprudence . But walking away with no punisment at all seems wrong too.
> 
> Since Zimmerman seems to be a law abidding citizen therefore a sentence of social work seems appropiate for me .



Yet you place all the blame on Zimmerman. Typical Lib. If Martin had simply gone home and not assaulted Zimmerman, he'd be alive. Had Martin not done things that got him suspended from school, he would not have been in Sanford.

But it's Zim's fault for carrying a firearm. OK.


----------



## hortysir

Really can't speak to the OP, as he has literally said every point I like to be brought to the discussion


----------



## hortysir

Sallow said:


> The Zimmerman verdict represents a devolution of the justice system and a return to the notion that "lynching" is okay. This might even become the lynchpin of a second civil rights movement



You're absolutely right, Sallow.

The media and a portion of our population WERE out to lynch Zimmerman.
Good of you to pint that out


----------



## thanatos144

we all must remember the progressives don't care about this dead young man.. they only care that they have the ability to use him to take more freedoms from us. namely stand your ground a law used in Florida mostly by the black, population and with a 55 percent success rate


----------



## The Rabbi

tyroneweaver said:


> pre trial I wondered why if zimmerman called 911 and the calvary was on the way why he couldn't hold out a little longer until help arrived
> 
> 
> post trial: with the involvement of obama and holder  I am thrilled at the verdict.



You mean allow his head to be bashed in a few times more?  How many times would you like your head bashed on the sidewalk before you've had enough?


----------



## CultureCitizen

Ernie S. said:


> Yet you place all the blame on Zimmerman. Typical Lib. If Martin had simply gone home and not assaulted Zimmerman, he'd be alive. Had Martin not done things that got him suspended from school, he would not have been in Sanford.
> 
> But it's Zim's fault for carrying a firearm. OK.



Not for carying it : for playing the vigilante without propper trainning , and getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person. Hell , the police was just 1 minute away .

And yes ... what an evil lot we liberls are : social service in exchange for his imprudence.


----------



## Pop23

I wonder how those that want Zimmermans head served on a platter would respond if we change things up just slightly....

It's not George Zimmerman, but Georgia Zimmerman

Georgia is not a Male white Hispanic "cop wannabe", but a Female white Hispanic "cop wannabe"

Now, Georgia is confronted by this 17 year old male that punches her, breaks her nose, jumps on her and, instead of pounding her head against the concrete, starts ripping her clothes off. She fires the gun killing the young man.

None of us would be defending the young man as "just being a kid" and the President would not be saying either.....

If I had a son he would look like him, nor

35 years ago that could have been me.

Yet, in the above there was NO threat of death.....


----------



## The Rabbi

CultureCitizen said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you place all the blame on Zimmerman. Typical Lib. If Martin had simply gone home and not assaulted Zimmerman, he'd be alive. Had Martin not done things that got him suspended from school, he would not have been in Sanford.
> 
> But it's Zim's fault for carrying a firearm. OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for carying it : for playing the vigilante without propper trainning , and getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person. Hell , the police was just 1 minute away .
> 
> And yes ... what an evil lot we liberls are : social service in exchange for his imprudence.
Click to expand...


He did not "play the vigilante".  That is another lie you should have been schooled on.  He did not "get into a fist fight."  He was sucker punched by Trayvon. I suppose next you'll say if Zimmerman had just moved his jaw out of the way of Trayvon's fist none of this would have happened.
Neg for gross stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## A_LittleFeisty

The problem we have is there is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda and if this and if that. The problem we have just is not going to be salved until the mud slinging is over and everyone involved sits down and talks about what happened and why it happened. There are many issues involved here and IMO they should have never been made public. 

We do have some public matters at hand that need to be addressed. We need for everyone to see that we are all made equal. Yes some have more problems then others. The problems that we all have need to be solved by ourselves. If we all take our own problems and take responsibility for them and not blame someone for them we all would be in a better state. 

You see Zimmerman made a mistake and the press got a hold of the story and changed some facts and/or did not report the complete truth in the matter. By them doing this it has gotten so many people upset because the facts that were reported were not true and complete.


----------



## The Rabbi

A_LittleFeisty said:


> The problem we have is there is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda and if this and if that. The problem we have just is not going to be salved until the mud slinging is over and everyone involved sits down and talks about what happened and why it happened. There are many issues involved here and IMO they should have never been made public.
> 
> We do have some public matters at hand that need to be addressed. We need for everyone to see that we are all made equal. Yes some have more problems then others. The problems that we all have need to be solved by ourselves. If we all take our own problems and take responsibility for them and not blame someone for them we all would be in a better state.
> 
> You see Zimmerman made a mistake and the press got a hold of the story and changed some facts and/or did not report the complete truth in the matter. By them doing this it has gotten so many people upset because the facts that were reported were not true and complete.



What mistake did Zimmerman make?  OTher than not shooting that asshole sooner?


----------



## earlycuyler

Survivalist said:


> What you and the press, and especially the Trayvon supporters did not talk about was that Trayvon was a thug.  Kicked out of school for fighting, caught with stolen items, acting like a gangsta online and on film---basically abborant behavior.
> 
> Imagine if there was even ONE shread of evidence of Zimmerman doing any of these similar bad things, he would have been crucified for them.
> 
> When people start holding everyone to the same behavioral standards, America can move forward.  But that won't happen.



So then what was TM doing at the time that was abborant ?


----------



## hoosier88

The state of FL *v.* Zimmerman was/is a national *Rorschach Test*.  Like the Mirror of Erised from the Harry Potter series, everyone seems to see what they want to see when they look into it.

What I see is a flawed investigation into a fatal shooting.  The dead is an unarmed Black young man.  The shooter is an armed Hispanic man, supposedly on Neighborhood Watch rounds, except that he's armed, he's following the subject he'd called in to the police, & he confronts the subject.

The sheriff was eventually released from his job.  The sheriff apparently missed the potential interest in the case, he didn't collect all the forensic evidence immediately, he didn't protect the crime scene (for investigative purposes, you assume it's a crime scene), he didn't do blood draws on subject & shooter (for alcohol &/or drugs) immediately, @ the point that the forensic technicians bagged Martin's hoodie, they put it still wet into plastic & fungus ruined the evidence.  I blame the sheriff for this case dragging out - better tradecraft & case work & we might have had a definitive answer as to whether the shooting was justified.  In the actual case, Zimmerman was interviewed & released.

As it is, the state couldn't make the case that the shooting was unjustified.  & so Zimmerman is not guilty, as the court requires in these cases.

I think there is & was a lot of hysteria all around.  The shooting & verdict do not constitute the beginning of a race war - if that didn't happen in the '60s & '70s, then I doubt it's ever going to happen here.  Nor are we headed back to the worst days of Jim Crow - that's over too.

The media can shoulder a lot of blame for the near-hysteria.  Why anyone would listen to these (mostly) fat-headed chuckleheads who usually don't know the difference between an assault rifle & a machinegun & a submachine gun; or a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle & an M1A1 Abrams tank & an engineering/recovery vehicle - is beyond me.  It bears repeating - without the relevant experience as a reporter covering the crime beat, or covering the military long enough to become familiar with the equipment & tactics, most of our news anchors have nothing useful to say about the topic.

Other than my criticism of the police failure to implement what I understood to be police SOP, I don't have an opinion on the case.  I see that the MSM & the various governmental units are still parsing What the meaning of it all is.  Far as I can tell, There is no overarching meaning.  

That seems to be a message that the MSM don't like much - they want a nice moral to cap the story with, as if this were an episode of *CSI* or one of the other police procedural TV series.  But we're in a more Existential mode here - things happen, events tumble out of control, the least likely things seem to happen regardless of whatever odds we thought we knew.  & then something else happens, & the MSM feeding frenzy is in full hue & cry to cover that.  With the exact same breathless delivery, the cameras & mikes up close in the interviewee's face, the same lack of tact & thought.  

The MSM reacts to events, like an action junkie looking for his next fix of adrenaline.  There will always be a fire or explosion or some kid down a well or the missing little blonde girl *du jour *to go cover.  It is foolish to expect any deep thoughts out of the MSM - that's not why they're there.  They're there to provide eyecandy & attract eyeballs - which translate to numbers of watchers, which translates to money.  That's all it is, don't look for meaning there, it's all the lowest common denominator & whatever fool thing they have to do to get you to watch.


----------



## A_LittleFeisty

The Rabbi said:


> A_LittleFeisty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have is there is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda and if this and if that. The problem we have just is not going to be salved until the mud slinging is over and everyone involved sits down and talks about what happened and why it happened. There are many issues involved here and IMO they should have never been made public.
> 
> We do have some public matters at hand that need to be addressed. We need for everyone to see that we are all made equal. Yes some have more problems then others. The problems that we all have need to be solved by ourselves. If we all take our own problems and take responsibility for them and not blame someone for them we all would be in a better state.
> 
> You see Zimmerman made a mistake and the press got a hold of the story and changed some facts and/or did not report the complete truth in the matter. By them doing this it has gotten so many people upset because the facts that were reported were not true and complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What mistake did Zimmerman make?  OTher than not shooting that asshole sooner?
Click to expand...


He did not ask TM if he needed help, or did not ask TM if he was in the area because he was visiting someone. Just by asking a simple question could have defused the whole matter. See here people that we don't know sometimes are waling around and just seem out of place. Everyone around here asks the person what there reason for be around is or asks if we could help them and no one even gets into a fight.


----------



## thanatos144

A_LittleFeisty said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A_LittleFeisty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have is there is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda and if this and if that. The problem we have just is not going to be salved until the mud slinging is over and everyone involved sits down and talks about what happened and why it happened. There are many issues involved here and IMO they should have never been made public.
> 
> We do have some public matters at hand that need to be addressed. We need for everyone to see that we are all made equal. Yes some have more problems then others. The problems that we all have need to be solved by ourselves. If we all take our own problems and take responsibility for them and not blame someone for them we all would be in a better state.
> 
> You see Zimmerman made a mistake and the press got a hold of the story and changed some facts and/or did not report the complete truth in the matter. By them doing this it has gotten so many people upset because the facts that were reported were not true and complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What mistake did Zimmerman make?  OTher than not shooting that asshole sooner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not ask TM if he needed help, or did not ask TM if he was in the area because he was visiting someone. Just by asking a simple question could have defused the whole matter. See here people that we don't know sometimes are waling around and just seem out of place. Everyone around here asks the person what there reason for be around is or asks if we could help them and no one even gets into a fight.
Click to expand...


he lost him he was walking back to the damn truck before tm confronted him and then brutally attacked him.


----------



## The Rabbi

hoosier88 said:


> The state of FL *v.* Zimmerman was/is a national *Rorschach Test*.  Like the Mirror of Erised from the Harry Potter series, everyone seems to see what they want to see when they look into it.
> 
> What I see is a flawed investigation into a fatal shooting.  The dead is an unarmed Black young man.  The shooter is an armed Hispanic man, supposedly on Neighborhood Watch rounds, except that he's armed, he's following the subject he'd called in to the police, & he confronts the subject.
> 
> The sheriff was eventually released from his job.  The sheriff apparently missed the potential interest in the case, he didn't collect all the forensic evidence immediately, he didn't protect the crime scene (for investigative purposes, you assume it's a crime scene), he didn't do blood draws on subject & shooter (for alcohol &/or drugs) immediately, @ the point that the forensic technicians bagged Martin's hoodie, they put it into plastic & fungus ruined the evidence.  I blame the sheriff for this case dragging out - better tradecraft & case work & we might have had a definitive answer as to whether the shooting was justified.  In the actual case, Zimmerman was interviewed & released.
> 
> As it is, the state couldn't make the case that the shooting was unjustified.  & so Zimmerman is not guilty, as the court requires in these cases.
> 
> .



If people dont get the facts right, they cannot get the case right.
Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch. He was going out to the store.  He did not follow Martin.  He got out of the truck to see where he had gone because he had lost sight of him.  Zimmerman did not confront Martin.  Martin confronted Zimmerman and then punched him.
There was no sheriff.  The chief of police was relieved of duty because of pressure from Washington over the case.  The police on duty that night understood it was a good shoot, as did the district attorney.  This is why they lethim go that night.
Once the facts are clarified the case becomes simple.


----------



## Pheonixops

TemplarKormac said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> Also, the state's prime witness reversed her lying court testimony of "Trayvon cried for help and the other guy was on top" to "Trayvon whooped cracka's ass." during her first post trial interview. This female lying is not uncommon in cases in which Al Sharpton inures witnesses repeatedly into the process of decimating a white person for living. He has come to the conclusion that if one is black, one is right, to hell with what the law says. And he somehow surrounds himself with the meconium of purile black persons who are urged to commit perjury against white people. He's full of rancor and hate.
> 
> Cases in which Sharpton involved himself: (1) Twanna Brawley lies about unknown white assailants (2) Chrystal Magnum lie about rape (Duke Lacrosse Team)
> 
> *Black citizens have maggots like Sharpton fooling them, and that's why they get loser syndrome every time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step up to the plate.* These men have made themselves disreputable over and over and over. When they take over with their smear campaigns and make everyone indignant, they take a lot of money home with them and live like kings. The nation needs to reconsider perjury laws and enforce them, and quit falling for blackmail threats of incitation of pandemic mob violence. It's time to call bluff and duke it out.
> 
> *The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I find that pretty ignorant and insulting; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?*
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support?  Is federal support solely for Black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given their reaction towards the verdict? All of them. And as for thinking for themselves, that remains yet to be seen.
Click to expand...


LOL, what do you mean by "their reaction"? Do you mean Charles Barkley's reaction? Do you actually think that it is even anything close to "intellectual honesty" to equate some Black people's dissatisfaction with the result of the trial as now "followers of Sharpton and Jackson"?


----------



## Cuyo

freedombecki said:


> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.



Will you people give it a rest?  

It was consistent with the _possibility _of self-defense, as defined by Florida statute, in the eyes of 6 individuals.

They didn't show that he "was not the aggressor," only that he might not have been.  His wounds were consistent with a good, and probably well-deserved ass whoopin.  Forensics can't tell you what happened moments before.

But what_ appears_ to have happened?  That's where the civil case comes into play.


----------



## hoosier88

The Rabbi said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people dont get the facts right, they cannot get the case right.
> Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch. He was going out to the store.  He did not follow Martin.  He got out of the truck to see where he had gone because he had lost sight of him.  Zimmerman did not confront Martin.  Martin confronted Zimmerman and then punched him.
> There was no sheriff.  The *chief of police *was relieved of duty because of pressure from Washington over the case.  The *police on duty that night understood it was a good shoot, as did the district attorney.*  This is why they lethim go that night.
> Once the facts are clarified the case becomes simple.
Click to expand...


(My bold)

The chief of police, thanks.

Yah, the police & DA considered it a righteous shooting initially.  Does the DA still have a job there?  I still fault the chief of police for not considering how the shooting would look.

Once the MSM & yes, the Black activists started protesting how the case was handled,  there was bound to be pressure for a thorough investigation.  As I noted, collecting all the evidence immediately, from the site & from the subject & the shooter - might have substantiated Zimmerman's account or might not - either way, both defense & prosecution would have had better information to work with.  Better info might have gotten us a definitive verdict, instead of the *not guilty *we have because the state couldn't make its case.  

That - I'm convinced - if why we have all these people still reacting as if the shooting were taking place now, over & over.  I think it's beside the point to argue the minutae of the case - it won't bring back Martin nor fix the mess that Zimmerman is facing.  

In FL_* v.*_ Zimmerman, it wasn't possible to please all the parties involved.  From the POV of the state of FL, the best they could do was convince everyone that they had done their best to deliver justice.  That should have been the focus of all the parties - but events & personalities got in the way.


----------



## Granny

Not sure why someone would want my opinion on this subject, but I haven't particularly had any reason to follow it closely.  Sometimes I just get tired of all the BS and feel like we should return our courtrooms from public spectacles back to courtrooms with some semblance of decorum.  (Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I know ... the public has a right ... ."  Plllutttt!!

There are so many of these "high profile" trials today that go on and on and on - the OJ Simpson trial, that Peterson guy in CA who killed his pregnant wife, the ex-cop Peterson guy who seemed to have a habit of killing his wives, Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias (which was a mega circus), Zimmerman ... .  In all cases, they were FUCKED up from day one. Hell, they're double and triple fucked.

Once the MSM gets a whiff of a particular situation they beat the damned thing to death.  It doesn't matter whether there's a word of truth in anything they "dig up," get from "reliable sources," or "anonymous sources," etc. They have whipped the public into a feeding frenzy for blood.  There is no such thing as responsible journalism today in the MSM.

Then there's all the pre-trial hysteria, and dishonesty between prosecutors and defense lawyers (such as withholding critical information or failure to produce documents to which the other side is entitled to receive) in an attempt to frame their cases the way they want them to be decided.  Then you have judges (such as Lance Ito) who can't keep control over their courtrooms or make arbitrary rulings on various items that can be prejudicial to one party or the other.

Frankly, I think cameras should be removed from the courtrooms and control kept over who comes into a courtroom as an observer to all the chaos - hell, these days people become so invested in a trial that they will travel long distances to stand in line to get a ticket to see the circus.

Innocence until proven guilty is a legal concept originated in America.  It's a good concept but these days taxpayers are paying millions upon millions of dollars to fund what should be a fair trial, not a protracted public entertainment vehicle. The Zimmerman trial had interest to Floridians and Florida law and should have been conducted as such. I've never heard of a 6 member jury panel, but who am I to question it?  Guilty or not, he was found not guilty by a jury and that's the end of it.  Period.  

The government should stay the hell out of local matters.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should stay put wherever the hell they are instead of out rabble rousing. Nothing is to be gained from that but there's a hell of a lot to be lost. Zimmerman cannot be retried because of double jeopardy laws.  So the thing to do, it seems, is to go after the witnesses and prosecution for any number of reasons to establish a verdict that is more "favorable" or "just" in the eyes of those who are dissatisfied with the first verdict.


----------



## The Rabbi

hoosier88 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people dont get the facts right, they cannot get the case right.
> Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch. He was going out to the store.  He did not follow Martin.  He got out of the truck to see where he had gone because he had lost sight of him.  Zimmerman did not confront Martin.  Martin confronted Zimmerman and then punched him.
> There was no sheriff.  The *chief of police *was relieved of duty because of pressure from Washington over the case.  The *police on duty that night understood it was a good shoot, as did the district attorney.*  This is why they lethim go that night.
> Once the facts are clarified the case becomes simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> The chief of police, thanks.
> 
> Yah, the police & DA considered it a righteous shooting initially.  Does the DA still have a job there?  I still fault the chief of police for not considering how the shooting would look.
> 
> Once the MSM & yes, the Black activists started protesting how the case was handled,  there was bound to be pressure for a thorough investigation.  As I noted, collecting all the evidence immediately, from the site & from the subject & the shooter - might have substantiated Zimmerman's account or might not - either way, both defense & prosecution would have had better information to work with.  Better info might have gotten us a definitive verdict, instead of the *not guilty *we have because the state couldn't make its case.
> 
> That - I'm convinced - if why we have all these people still reacting as if the shooting were taking place now, over & over.  I think it's beside the point to argue the minutae of the case - it won't bring back Martin nor fix the mess that Zimmerman is facing.
> 
> In FL_* v.*_ Zimmerman, it wasn't possible to please all the parties involved.  From the POV of the state of FL, the best they could do was convince everyone that they had done their best to deliver justice.  That should have been the focus of all the parties - but events & personalities got in the way.
Click to expand...


Um, not guilty by reason of self defense IS a definitive verdict.  It doesnt get any more definitive than that.
We aren't interested in pleasing all parties involved.  We are interested in adjudicating a murder case and seeing justice done.  Justice was done.  Zimmerman was exhonerated in a self defense case.  The people who are claiming otherwise are, frankly, race pimps and baiters.


----------



## freedombecki

Pheonixops said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> Also, the state's prime witness reversed her lying court testimony of "Trayvon cried for help and the other guy was on top" to "Trayvon whooped cracka's ass." during her first post trial interview. This female lying is not uncommon in cases in which Al Sharpton inures witnesses repeatedly into the process of decimating a white person for living. He has come to the conclusion that if one is black, one is right, to hell with what the law says. And he somehow surrounds himself with the meconium of purile black persons who are urged to commit perjury against white people. He's full of rancor and hate.
> 
> Cases in which Sharpton involved himself: (1) Twanna Brawley lies about unknown white assailants (2) Chrystal Magnum lie about rape (Duke Lacrosse Team)
> 
> *Black citizens have maggots like Sharpton fooling them, and that's why they get loser syndrome every time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step up to the plate.* These men have made themselves disreputable over and over and over. When they take over with their smear campaigns and make everyone indignant, they take a lot of money home with them and live like kings. The nation needs to reconsider perjury laws and enforce them, and quit falling for blackmail threats of incitation of pandemic mob violence. It's time to call bluff and duke it out.
> 
> *The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that pretty ignorant and insulting; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support? Is federal support solely for Black people?
Click to expand...

* I find that pretty ignorant and insulting;*

Not following you down OffTopic Lane.


----------



## freedombecki

Cuyo said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you people give it a rest?
> 
> It was consistent with the _possibility _of self-defense, as defined by Florida statute, in the eyes of 6 individuals.
> 
> They didn't show that he "was not the aggressor," only that he might not have been. His wounds were consistent with a good, and probably well-deserved ass whoopin. Forensics can't tell you what happened moments before.
> 
> But what_ appears_ to have happened? That's where the civil case comes into play.
Click to expand...

 No, Cuyo, I won't give it a rest. The B team has had its fun with screaming and threatening and saying the innocent is guilty. The evidence and one of the best forensics scientists in the country said Trayvon was on top, and the evidence pointed that way. His shirt bloused out as he was pounding down on Zimmerman. Trayvon allegedly told Zimmerman he was going to die, and Zimmerman couldn't get away from the beating he was taking. When Zimmerman finally was able to grab his gun, he fired to save his life from the death Trayvon threatened with his filthy mouth. His little pal who testified that it was "Trayvon calling for help" told her first interviewer that Trayvon was "Whoopin dat cracka's ass." IOW, she perjured herself rather than told the truth just so her testimony would put Zimmerman away unfairly. Forensics can tell you the position each man was in. It determined there was a huge likelihood of Trayvon in superior position twelve different ways.

The civil case? You mean the Double Jeopardy case that was instigated by the Holder DOJ? Yeah right. You're the one who needs to give it a rest, because obstruction of justice is one thing that can and should result in an impeachment of someone with an irresponsible attitude toward innocent people who tries to get them in more trouble than they deserve for not being black enough.


----------



## mudwhistle

earlycuyler said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to just sit down and respond to all of these opinions in one extra long response post.  I will address just a few.
> 
> This case was not a case that turned on the guilt or innocence of anyone.   We know George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.  He admitted it.  This case was one that decided whether or not firing that fatal shot was justified.  The jury's verdict was that the act was justified.
> 
> The reason why this case can't be compared to the OJ case is because the OJ case did involve questions of guilt or innocence.   OJ denied being the killer.   He said he didn't do it, someone else did it.  The prosecution could never prove that he committed the acts that led to death beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no issue of whether or not the acts were justified.  The doubt was that it was as reasonable to conclude that someone else killed Goldman and Brown, as it was reasonable to conclude that OJ did it.  With that kind of evidence, the jury has no choice but to acquit.   Just like in the Zimmerman case, once they concluded that Zimmerman was being beaten and felt that he would be beaten to death, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
> 
> Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.   The attacks and vandalism now being played out did not start with Trayvon Martin.  It has been going on for years.  Long, long before the names Martin or Zimmerman were ever heard.  It's an excuse now.  "Bash for Trayvon".   It justifies what they wanted to do and were going to do anyway.
> 
> If the sensible black people do not take charge and get a handle on the kind of violence coming from this part of the nation, there is no hope for them.  None at all.   The brush of violence is so broad that it will absolutely paint each and every black person that walks the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is against the law to shoot people for being thugs.* No crime was being committed when GZ was following him. So for all intents and purposes TM was just a guy being followed by another guy. Its as cowardly and lazy to go on about TM being a " thug in training" as it is to constantly inject race. And the Zimmerman groupies are so happy, and never consider that CCW rights as well as stand your ground laws are in danger and those who want them repealed have their poster boy in GZ.
Click to expand...


Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act. Felonious assault. 

Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Zimmerman T-shirts.


----------



## The Rabbi

mudwhistle said:


> Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act.
> 
> Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Trayvon T-shirts.



If I had a son, he would look like Zimmerman.


----------



## Ernie S.

CultureCitizen said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you place all the blame on Zimmerman. Typical Lib. If Martin had simply gone home and not assaulted Zimmerman, he'd be alive. Had Martin not done things that got him suspended from school, he would not have been in Sanford.
> 
> But it's Zim's fault for carrying a firearm. OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for carying it : for playing the vigilante without propper trainning , and getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person. Hell , the police was just 1 minute away .
> 
> And yes ... what an evil lot we liberls are : social service in exchange for his imprudence.
Click to expand...


For getting into a fist fight????? Are you insane? Are you blaming Zimmerman for slamming his nose into Martin's fist?

Jesus Christ! How fucking insane is that?
In one minute he could have been dead.
Again, you place all the blame on the man who acted legally to end a threat he reasonably believed could result in his death or severe injury, and not on the man who illegally assaulted him.


----------



## thanatos144

The Rabbi said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act.
> 
> Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Trayvon T-shirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a son, he would look like Zimmerman.
Click to expand...


if the truth be told if Obama had a son at probably look more like Zimmerman


----------



## Pheonixops

freedombecki said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> Also, the state's prime witness reversed her lying court testimony of "Trayvon cried for help and the other guy was on top" to "Trayvon whooped cracka's ass." during her first post trial interview. This female lying is not uncommon in cases in which Al Sharpton inures witnesses repeatedly into the process of decimating a white person for living. He has come to the conclusion that if one is black, one is right, to hell with what the law says. And he somehow surrounds himself with the meconium of purile black persons who are urged to commit perjury against white people. He's full of rancor and hate.
> 
> Cases in which Sharpton involved himself: (1) Twanna Brawley lies about unknown white assailants (2) Chrystal Magnum lie about rape (Duke Lacrosse Team)
> 
> *Black citizens have maggots like Sharpton fooling them, and that's why they get loser syndrome every time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step up to the plate.* These men have made themselves disreputable over and over and over. When they take over with their smear campaigns and make everyone indignant, they take a lot of money home with them and live like kings. The nation needs to reconsider perjury laws and enforce them, and quit falling for blackmail threats of incitation of pandemic mob violence. It's time to call bluff and duke it out.
> 
> *The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that pretty ignorant and insulting; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support? Is federal support solely for Black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * I find that pretty ignorant and insulting;*
> 
> Not following you down OffTopic Lane.
Click to expand...


How is responding to specific points that you were trying to make, now suddenly "off topic"?


----------



## Ernie S.

earlycuyler said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you and the press, and especially the Trayvon supporters did not talk about was that Trayvon was a thug.  Kicked out of school for fighting, caught with stolen items, acting like a gangsta online and on film---basically abborant behavior.
> 
> Imagine if there was even ONE shread of evidence of Zimmerman doing any of these similar bad things, he would have been crucified for them.
> 
> When people start holding everyone to the same behavioral standards, America can move forward.  But that won't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then what was TM doing at the time that was abborant ?
Click to expand...


Assaulting Zimmerman? Yes. Animalistic, perhaps.


----------



## Ernie S.

A_LittleFeisty said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A_LittleFeisty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have is there is a lot of woulda coulda shoulda and if this and if that. The problem we have just is not going to be salved until the mud slinging is over and everyone involved sits down and talks about what happened and why it happened. There are many issues involved here and IMO they should have never been made public.
> 
> We do have some public matters at hand that need to be addressed. We need for everyone to see that we are all made equal. Yes some have more problems then others. The problems that we all have need to be solved by ourselves. If we all take our own problems and take responsibility for them and not blame someone for them we all would be in a better state.
> 
> You see Zimmerman made a mistake and the press got a hold of the story and changed some facts and/or did not report the complete truth in the matter. By them doing this it has gotten so many people upset because the facts that were reported were not true and complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What mistake did Zimmerman make?  OTher than not shooting that asshole sooner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not ask TM if he needed help, or did not ask TM if he was in the area because he was visiting someone. Just by asking a simple question could have defused the whole matter. See here people that we don't know sometimes are waling around and just seem out of place. Everyone around here asks the person what there reason for be around is or asks if we could help them and no one even gets into a fight.
Click to expand...


Zimmerman had no duty to confront Martin. As a matter of fact, when I was on Neighborhood Watch, we were advised not to confront, but to observe.
Now, before you start telling me that Neighborhood watch recommends that you not be armed on patrol, there is #1, no law prohibiting being armed on patrol and #2, Mr. Zimmerman was NOT on patrol. He was on his way to Target to do some shopping when he noticed Martin.


----------



## Ernie S.

The Rabbi said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people dont get the facts right, they cannot get the case right.
> Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch. He was going out to the store.  He did not follow Martin.  He got out of the truck to see where he had gone because he had lost sight of him.  Zimmerman did not confront Martin.  Martin confronted Zimmerman and then punched him.
> There was no sheriff.  The *chief of police *was relieved of duty because of pressure from Washington over the case.  The *police on duty that night understood it was a good shoot, as did the district attorney.*  This is why they lethim go that night.
> Once the facts are clarified the case becomes simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> The chief of police, thanks.
> 
> Yah, the police & DA considered it a righteous shooting initially.  Does the DA still have a job there?  I still fault the chief of police for not considering how the shooting would look.
> 
> Once the MSM & yes, the Black activists started protesting how the case was handled,  there was bound to be pressure for a thorough investigation.  As I noted, collecting all the evidence immediately, from the site & from the subject & the shooter - might have substantiated Zimmerman's account or might not - either way, both defense & prosecution would have had better information to work with.  Better info might have gotten us a definitive verdict, instead of the *not guilty *we have because the state couldn't make its case.
> 
> That - I'm convinced - if why we have all these people still reacting as if the shooting were taking place now, over & over.  I think it's beside the point to argue the minutae of the case - it won't bring back Martin nor fix the mess that Zimmerman is facing.
> 
> In FL_* v.*_ Zimmerman, it wasn't possible to please all the parties involved.  From the POV of the state of FL, the best they could do was convince everyone that they had done their best to deliver justice.  That should have been the focus of all the parties - but events & personalities got in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, not guilty by reason of self defense IS a definitive verdict.  It doesnt get any more definitive than that.
> We aren't interested in pleasing all parties involved.  We are interested in adjudicating a murder case and seeing justice done.  Justice was done.  Zimmerman was exhonerated in a self defense case.  The people who are claiming otherwise are, frankly, race pimps and baiters.
Click to expand...


What the Martinistas fail to realize is that in finding Zimmerman not guilty by virtue of self defense, they are in effect saying that no crime took place. This negated the argument that not guilty isn't the same as innocent.
Zimmerman is innocent simply due to the fact that *no crime took place*, other than Trayvon Martin assaulting George Zimmerman. It's unfortunate that he's not available for prosecution.


----------



## Ernie S.

The Rabbi said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act.
> 
> Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Trayvon T-shirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a son, he would look like Zimmerman.
Click to expand...


I have 2 sons and a daughter all about Zimmerman's age. While they don't physically resemble Zimmerman that closely, they all resemble him in that they are usually strapped.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Just my humble opinion... both of those boys fucked up.  It appears that George was able to convince a jury of his peers that he feared for his life when he pulled his trigger and that was the crux of the letter of the law.

I still think George bears a bit of the responsibility because Trayvon started the altercation by minding his own business and George is older.  As the adult and the initiator, he was responsible for the outcome.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pheonixops said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that pretty ignorant and insulting; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support? Is federal support solely for Black people?
> 
> 
> 
> * I find that pretty ignorant and insulting;*
> 
> Not following you down OffTopic Lane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is responding to specific points that you were trying to make, now suddenly "off topic"?
Click to expand...




> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support? Is federal support solely for Black people?



That part.


----------



## Vox

A_LittleFeisty said:


> He did not ask TM if he needed help, or did not ask TM if he was in the area because he was visiting someone. Just by asking a simple question could have defused the whole matter. See here people that we don't know sometimes are waling around and just seem out of place. Everyone around here asks the person what there reason for be around is or asks if we could help them and no one even gets into a fight.



Yep. People invented rules of polite and well-mannered behavior exactly because it makes life safer and easier.

Too bad NOBODY ever teaches them and they are not considered necessary for upbringing the kids by the vast majority of Americans.
Neither of the participants ever were exposed to those rules, obviously.
And they could have saved Trayvon's life  and not ruin George's life.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Survivalist said:


> What you and the press, and especially the Trayvon supporters did not talk about was that Trayvon was a thug.  Kicked out of school for fighting, caught with stolen items, acting like a gangsta online and on film---basically abborant behavior.
> 
> Imagine if there was even ONE shread of evidence of Zimmerman doing any of these similar bad things, he would have been crucified for them.
> 
> When people start holding everyone to the same behavioral standards, America can move forward.  But that won't happen.



  "...start holding everyone to the same behavioral standards..."  

And at gun point if necessary, it sounds like.  

Whose standards?  My standards?  I'm sure as hell not gonna live by YOUR standards!  

And I don't expect you to live by mine, being a Liberal and all.



  Now what?


----------



## thanatos144

an armed society is a polite society


----------



## Pop23

So I asked before and I will ask again.....

If everything else were the same except:

George was Georgia

Not a white Hispanic male wanna be cop but a white Hispanic female wannabe cop and

Instead of having his head slammed to the concrete, she was having her clothes ripped off and SHE shot the attacker, killing him

Would you give a rats butt about this? 

Would you defend the attacker?


----------



## AVG-JOE

thanatos144 said:


> an armed society is a polite society



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsjmuvCN3q4]EVE OF DESTRUCTION ORIGINAL VERSION - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## AVG-JOE

Pop23 said:


> So I asked before and I will ask again.....
> 
> If everything else were the same except:
> 
> George was Georgia
> 
> Not a white Hispanic male wanna be cop but a white Hispanic female wannabe cop and
> 
> Instead of having his head slammed to the concrete, she was having her clothes ripped off and SHE shot the attacker, killing him
> 
> Would you give a rats butt about this?
> 
> Would you defend the attacker?



I don't think that a woman would be stupid enough to ignore the advice from the 911 dispatcher not to engage.


----------



## Pop23

AVG-JOE said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I asked before and I will ask again.....
> 
> If everything else were the same except:
> 
> George was Georgia
> 
> Not a white Hispanic male wanna be cop but a white Hispanic female wannabe cop and
> 
> Instead of having his head slammed to the concrete, she was having her clothes ripped off and SHE shot the attacker, killing him
> 
> Would you give a rats butt about this?
> 
> Would you defend the attacker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that a woman would be stupid enough to ignore the advice from the 911 dispatcher not to engage.
Click to expand...


I understand its a tough question.

Remember, all things are equal. She did ignore the request


----------



## AVG-JOE

Pop, obviously the scenario you describe would have played out differently in the press, nobody is going to challenge that.

My answer will have to be the one with the wiggly arms:


----------



## Cuyo

freedombecki said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you people give it a rest?
> 
> It was consistent with the _possibility _of self-defense, as defined by Florida statute, in the eyes of 6 individuals.
> 
> They didn't show that he "was not the aggressor," only that he might not have been. His wounds were consistent with a good, and probably well-deserved ass whoopin. Forensics can't tell you what happened moments before.
> 
> But what_ appears_ to have happened? That's where the civil case comes into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Cuyo, I won't give it a rest. The B team has had its fun with screaming and threatening and saying the innocent is guilty. The evidence and one of the best forensics scientists in the country said Trayvon was on top, and the evidence pointed that way. His shirt bloused out as he was pounding down on Zimmerman. Trayvon allegedly told Zimmerman he was going to die, and Zimmerman couldn't get away from the beating he was taking. When Zimmerman finally was able to grab his gun, he fired to save his life from the death Trayvon threatened with his filthy mouth. His little pal who testified that it was "Trayvon calling for help" told her first interviewer that Trayvon was "Whoopin dat cracka's ass." IOW, she perjured herself rather than told the truth just so her testimony would put Zimmerman away unfairly. Forensics can tell you the position each man was in. It determined there was a huge likelihood of Trayvon in superior position twelve different ways.
Click to expand...


All evidence that he was getting his ass whooped.  Nothing less, nothing more.



> The civil case? You mean the Double Jeopardy case that was instigated by the Holder DOJ? Yeah right. You're the one who needs to give it a rest, because obstruction of justice is one thing that can and should result in an impeachment of someone with an irresponsible attitude toward innocent people who tries to get them in more trouble than they deserve for not being black enough.



Do you know what the terms 'civil case' or 'Double Jeopardy' mean?  

I think you actually sound more intelligent when you just screech about how he's innocent than you did right there.


----------



## Pheonixops

Ernie S. said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> * I find that pretty ignorant and insulting;*
> 
> Not following you down OffTopic Lane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is responding to specific points that you were trying to make, now suddenly "off topic"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support? Is federal support solely for Black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That part.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed this part that I was responding to:

"*The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors*."


----------



## AVG-JOE

AVG-JOE said:


> Pop, obviously the scenario you describe would have played out differently in the press, nobody is going to challenge that.
> 
> My answer will have to be the one with the wiggly arms:




And please don't think that by my feeling that Mr. Zimmerman bears a certain amount of responsibility in the outcome of that night that I believe Mr. Martin to be innocent.  Obviously the boy was aggressive enough to convince the court and I totally respect their verdict.

I just think George could have, and should have, prevented this.


----------



## Pop23

AVG-JOE said:


> Pop, obviously the scenario you describe would have played out differently in the press, nobody is going to challenge that.
> 
> My answer will have to be the one with the wiggly arms:



If the press handles it as it should have been handled. If Potus allows the state to handle it, it's simply another case that the court handles and the world moves on

Yet that is NOT what happened

Using my example, and the logic of those who want Zimmerman jailed, then the Hispanic female had two choices once the assault started

Shoot the young man, or

Let him finish and report the rape later

Which is right?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Pop23 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pop, obviously the scenario you describe would have played out differently in the press, nobody is going to challenge that.
> 
> My answer will have to be the one with the wiggly arms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the press handles it as it should have been handled. If Potus allows the state to handle it, it's simply another case that the court handles and the world moves on
> 
> Yet that is NOT what happened
> 
> Using my example, and the logic of those who want Zimmerman jailed, then the Hispanic female had two choices once the assault started
> 
> Shoot the young man, or
> 
> Let him finish and report the rape later
> 
> Which is right?
Click to expand...


Obviously George was able to convince a jury that he was under attack when he fired his weapon and under similar circumstances I would have pulled the trigger too.  Tell her to shoot the young man.

Obviously I'm not going to 'defend her attacker' in your scenario, and I'm not defending Mr Martin either.  As I said, *both* of those boys fucked up.

I still say that this average Joe, and most any woman out there, would *not* have been stupid enough to ignore the advice of the 911 operator and engage.

Would George have been as stupid as he was had he been unarmed?  Is it smart to give the borderline stupid access to enough firepower to tip them over the edge?

Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"


----------



## freedombecki

Pheonixops said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that pretty ignorant and insulting; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support? Is federal support solely for Black people?
> 
> 
> 
> *I find that pretty ignorant and insulting;*
> 
> Not following you down OffTopic Lane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is responding to specific points that you were trying to make, now suddenly "off topic"?
Click to expand...

I'm not going there when you find my post "ignorant and insulting." I wouldn't call that clean debating.


----------



## The Professor

CultureCitizen said:


> I have lots of qualms on this case. Zimmerman made lots of mistakes :
> 
> The most serious one : play the vigilante on a suspect, based on no evidence.
> 
> It all went wrong when he left the vehicle. They fought , Martin had the upper hand and Gorge answered firing his weapon ( hell , why didn't he carry a tasser for god's sake ).
> 
> At the end it was self defense. But if he hadn't taken the vigilante attitude and waited for the police both of them would be alive and well. So it's a real tragedy.
> 
> Life inprisionment is too harsh for his imprudence . But walking away with no punisment at all seems wrong too.
> 
> Since Zimmerman seems to be a law abidding citizen therefore a sentence of social work seems appropiate for me .



I disagree.  I think there was sufficient evidence to check the guy out.  It is a fact that there had been a number of burglaries in the area and that should cause anyone to observe what was going on and report any suspicious activity.     Zimmerman who knew his neighbors well had never seen Martin before (Martin was staying with his father's girlfriend because his mother had kicked Martin out of the house).  He reported that Martin was walking in the rain at night, just looking around and appeared that he may have been on drugs.   If  I observed a stranger walking around my neighborhood in the rain at night and just looking around and acting like he was on drugs, I would consider that suspicions, too.  When Martin called 911, the dispatcher agreed that the conduct described by Zimmerman warranted further investigation  and dispatched the police to the area.   Did the dispatcher overreact?

Zimmerman does not deserve any jail time.  All he did was try to protect his neighborhood.  He may not have done it the right way, but he did nothing which could possibly be characterized as a crime.  Only those who break a law should go to jail and Zimmerman broke no laws.  

Being suspicions of someone is not illegal.

Reporting their conduct to the police is not illegal.

Following someone is not illegal and I have no idea where in the hell people get the idea that it is.  Some people say Zimmerman stalked Martin,  but  they don't know the legal definition of the word  (see link below).

Using deadly force to defend yourself when you reasonably believe that if you don't you will suffer serious bodily injury or death is not illegal.

Decking someone because he's following you is a crime.   No one has the right to strike another person just because the other person is doing something they don't like.

Zimmerman did not violate a single law.  Martin is the only one who broke a law that night.   I respectfully challenge you or anyone else to prove that Zimmerman broke any law.  Just describe the specific conduct and  quote the applicable Florida Statute.  The jury tried to find Zimmerman guilty of something and couldn't do it.

For an analysis of  stalking as it pertains to Zimmerman's conduct go to the following site and check out permalink #26 (my post).

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/303329-no-problem-with-stalking-2.html#post7554602

PS:  If doing something stupid was a crime, none of us would pass a background check.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Not if you're smart enough to not get caught being stupid


----------



## Pop23

AVG-JOE said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pop, obviously the scenario you describe would have played out differently in the press, nobody is going to challenge that.
> 
> My answer will have to be the one with the wiggly arms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the press handles it as it should have been handled. If Potus allows the state to handle it, it's simply another case that the court handles and the world moves on
> 
> Yet that is NOT what happened
> 
> Using my example, and the logic of those who want Zimmerman jailed, then the Hispanic female had two choices once the assault started
> 
> Shoot the young man, or
> 
> Let him finish and report the rape later
> 
> Which is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously George was able to convince a jury that he was under attack when he fired his weapon and under similar circumstances I would have pulled the trigger too.  Tell her to shoot the young man.
> 
> Obviously I'm not going to 'defend her attacker' in your scenario, and I'm not defending Mr Martin either.  As I said *both* of those boys fucked up.
> 
> I still say that this average Joe, and most any woman out there, would *not* have been stupid enough to ignore the advice of the 911 operator and engage.
> 
> Would George have been as stupid as he was had he been unarmed?  Is it smart to give the borderline stupid access to enough firepower to tip them over the edge?
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
Click to expand...


Joe, there is no doubt that I respect you. I have no doubt in most situations you would act in the best interest of all parties involved 

Yet, we as a society MIGHT have a problem, which maybe we should have a discussion about, but using a man who WAS having his head slammed against pavement after having taking a sucker punch that knocked him down IS NOT how we should settle this

To do so is to place all of societies sins at the foot of this individual

By doing that we, in effect, are defending the rapist

Again, I am not saying you are, but unless I hear a coherent argument that the rapist (in my example) can be defended, then this whole thing is simply political folly.


----------



## beagle9

Good reading here... Thanks


----------



## The Professor

AVG-JOE said:


> Not if you're smart enough to not get caught being stupid



Good point.


----------



## Gadawg73

nodoginnafight said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was getting the hell beat out of him and defended himself. What more needs to be said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who started the fight
Click to expand...


They do not know.
Called reasonable doubt.
With Martin on top pummeling Zimmerman as the only eye witness testimony which is the direct evidence the burden of proof IS ON THE PROSECUTION that Zimmerman STARTED THE FIGHT.
And since there is NO evidence to prove that the law and the Judge's jury instructions are that the jury MUST find Zimmerman not guilty.
And the jury followed THE LAW and the Judge's JURY INSTRUCTIONS and correctly found Zimmerman not guilty.
Amazing the dumb asses that can not figure that out.
NOTHING TO DO with whether or not Zimmerman was an idiot also.


----------



## mudwhistle

The Rabbi said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act.
> 
> Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Trayvon T-shirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a son, he would look like Zimmerman.
Click to expand...


If I had a son he'd look like Brad Pitt.


----------



## Gadawg73

AVG-JOE said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pop, obviously the scenario you describe would have played out differently in the press, nobody is going to challenge that.
> 
> My answer will have to be the one with the wiggly arms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the press handles it as it should have been handled. If Potus allows the state to handle it, it's simply another case that the court handles and the world moves on
> 
> Yet that is NOT what happened
> 
> Using my example, and the logic of those who want Zimmerman jailed, then the Hispanic female had two choices once the assault started
> 
> Shoot the young man, or
> 
> Let him finish and report the rape later
> 
> Which is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously George was able to convince a jury that he was under attack when he fired his weapon and under similar circumstances I would have pulled the trigger too.  Tell her to shoot the young man.
> 
> Obviously I'm not going to 'defend her attacker' in your scenario, and I'm not defending Mr Martin either.  As I said *both* of those boys fucked up.
> 
> I still say that this average Joe, and most any woman out there, would *not* have been stupid enough to ignore the advice of the 911 operator and engage.
> 
> Would George have been as stupid as he was had he been unarmed?  Is it smart to give the borderline stupid access to enough firepower to tip them over the edge?
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
Click to expand...


George did not testify and never said a word during the entire trial.
Did not have to.


----------



## Vox

AVG-JOE said:


> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"



The answer is - NONE. Gun laws ( meaning gun restriction) CAUSE more deaths than they prevent. 
See death and crime statistics in Chicago.


----------



## Gadawg73

Vox said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is - NONE. Gun laws ( meaning gun restriction) CAUSE more deaths than they prevent.
> See death and crime statistics in Chicago.
Click to expand...


Criminals obey NO laws much less gun laws.
Crime statistics are about the same. How many crimes never get reported because it is one criminal committing a crime against another criminal?
Crime stats are what is reported. Dead bodies do not lie but many times they have no leads in Chicago.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Blacks cause 49% of all murders in this country. Yet we're not suppose to enforce our laws equally against them?

I'm starting to believe that the left want these people to freely kill, rape and steal. This is somehow your solution.


----------



## Ernie S.

mudwhistle said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act.
> 
> Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Trayvon T-shirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a son, he would look like Zimmerman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had a son he'd look like Brad Pitt.
Click to expand...


I have a son and he looks like this:


----------



## Gadawg73

Ernie S. said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a son, he would look like Zimmerman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a son he'd look like Brad Pitt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a son and he looks like this:
> 
> http://www.deskpicture.com/DPs/Military/HumveeOnPatrol.jpg
Click to expand...


I have TWO that look like that!
But I could care less how one looks.
Real thugs and gangsters wear $3000 dollar Italian suits and Johnson Murphy shoes.


----------



## Vox

Gadawg73 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is - NONE. Gun laws ( meaning gun restriction) CAUSE more deaths than they prevent.
> See death and crime statistics in Chicago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals obey NO laws much less gun laws.
> _Crime_* statistics* _are about the same_. How many crimes never get reported because it is one criminal committing a crime against another criminal?
> _Crime _*stats *_are what is reported_. Dead bodies do not lie but many times they have no leads in Chicago.
Click to expand...


I am trying to figure it out where exactly you disagree with me. 
I have always thought that "stats" is a short version of "statistics" but your message seem to disagree with this.
Let's just concentrate on dead bodies here, since those are reported ( if found) - by statistical reports those are way higher in Chicago.


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Gadawg73

Vox said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is - NONE. Gun laws ( meaning gun restriction) CAUSE more deaths than they prevent.
> See death and crime statistics in Chicago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals obey NO laws much less gun laws.
> _Crime_* statistics* _are about the same_. How many crimes never get reported because it is one criminal committing a crime against another criminal?
> _Crime _*stats *_are what is reported_. Dead bodies do not lie but many times they have no leads in Chicago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to figure it out where exactly you disagree with me.
> I have always thought that "stats" is a short version of "statistics" but your message seem to disagree with this.
> Let's just concentrate on dead bodies here, since those are reported ( if found) - by statistical reports those are way higher in Chicago.
Click to expand...


I do not disagree with you.
Crime stats are like your first piece of ass telling you yours was the first cock she blew.
No one really knows.


----------



## birddog

When I get my NRA magazine each month, the first thing I read is the page of true stories where lives are saved by having a gun.  I have been a card carrying member of the NRA for many years, and I trust their statistics  and research.  Common sense says that responsible citizens that are armed save lives.

Of course, rare accidents with guns happen, but the good far outweighs the bad regarding gun ownership.


----------



## Vandalshandle

In America, "Justice" should not be confused with "fairness under the law". In all probablility, GZ was guilty, but the burdon of proof was on the prosecution, and they failed to meet that burdon. It is less about raciism than it is about the failure of the prosecution to follow through and sucessfully do their job, or not to have brought charges in the first place.

My brother-in-law was killed by a drunk driver who ran head long into his motorcyle on the wrong side of the road, after pulling out of a bar parking lot. It was an open and shut case, but the prosecution accidently messed up the paperwork, and the guy walked.

I believe that people like GZ, for the most part, do not change and grow with time. I believe that he is the kind of guy who will believe that what he did was OK, and will be able to get away with similar behavior in the future. A big tip off to me was when he said it was all 'God's plan". That was O.J all over again.

The presecution should try to learn from this, and do a better job in the future. I believe that karma will catch up with GZ by itself. In fact, I fully expect him to be in the news on the wrong side of the law again within a year.

In the meantime, life goes on, and nobody ever claimed that life is fair.


----------



## Oldstyle

Let's examine this case through "the looking glass" as it were...

Let's pretend that Trayvon Martin is a 17 year old white kid, on his way home from visiting the 7/11 when George Zimmerman, the African-American Captain of the Neighborhood Watch group spots him.  Let's also pretend that the gated community that our black George Zimmerman is driving through has been victimized by white teens breaking into houses.  So when our black George sees this strange white teen, he calls the Police to report him as being suspicious.  When the teen runs off our black George tries to keep him in sight so he can tell the Police where the boy is.

In the meantime our white teen is on the phone with his Cracker friend who he tells that he's being followed by a "creepy assed ******".  He then leaves the safety of the condo he's staying at...walks back to confront our black George Zimmerman...punches him in the face, knocks him to the ground, mounts him and continues to beat him.

Now you tell me...would the main stream media take "black George Zimmerman" over the coals for shooting our "white Trayvon Martin"?  Would there be nationwide protests if he was found not guilty of murder for protecting himself?


----------



## thanatos144

Matthew said:


> Blacks cause 49% of all murders in this country. Yet we're not suppose to enforce our laws equally against them?
> 
> I'm starting to believe that the left want these people to freely kill, rape and steal. This is somehow your solution.



You apparently are posting 90% of the stupid racist crap for all white posters.....


----------



## thanatos144

birddog said:


> When I get my NRA magazine each month, the first thing I read is the page of true stories where lives are saved by having a gun.  I have been a card carrying member of the NRA for many years, and I trust their statistics  and research.  Common sense says that responsible citizens that are armed save lives.
> 
> Of course, rare accidents with guns happen, but the good far outweighs the bad regarding gun ownership.



Rare accidents with a fork happen too


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

freedombecki said:


> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent.



Zimmerman was found not guilty. 

Whether he is innocent or not well never know.


----------



## thanatos144

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was found not guilty.
> 
> Whether he is &#8216;innocent&#8217; or not we&#8217;ll never know.
Click to expand...


I know its hard for you to process but a not guilty verdict in a self defense trial means innocent.....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wake said:


> *But, George Zimmerman is a racist!* ...is he?



As with Zimmermans innocence, well never know. 

Three other things well never know: 

Why did Zimmerman ignore the dispatchers instructions? 

Why did Zimmerman leave the safety of his own car only to place himself into a potentially dangerous situation? 

And what compelled Zimmerman to pursue Martin at all, failing to allow the police to investigate? 

Zimmerman not withstanding, citizens have the right to be racist. They have the right to believe all young black men are potential criminals, and they have the right to take precautions predicated on that fear, hate, and ignorance. But they must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their racism.    

The Zimmerman trial is over, and the correct verdict rendered; theres nothing more to discuss, as the trial is now part of Florida case law. 

What does need to be discussed, however, is how to ensure citizens understand the law, what constitutes self-defense and what does not, and how to protect oneself in the context of this case law.


----------



## Oldstyle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But, George Zimmerman is a racist!* ...is he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with Zimmermans innocence, well never know.
> 
> Three other things well never know:
> 
> Why did Zimmerman ignore the dispatchers instructions?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman leave the safety of his own car only to place himself into a potentially dangerous situation?
> 
> And what compelled Zimmerman to pursue Martin at all, failing to allow the police to investigate?
> 
> Zimmerman not withstanding, citizens have the right to be racist. They have the right to believe all young black men are potential criminals, and they have the right to take precautions predicated on that fear, hate, and ignorance. But they must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their racism.
> 
> The Zimmerman trial is over, and the correct verdict rendered; theres nothing more to discuss, as the trial is now part of Florida case law.
> 
> What does need to be discussed, however, is how to ensure citizens understand the law, what constitutes self-defense and what does not, and how to protect oneself in the context of this case law.
Click to expand...


Actually, Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's instructions to the letter.  When asked if he could see which way the suspect had run, Zimmerman got out of his SUV and attempted to keep Martin in sight.  When the dispatcher realized that Zimmerman was trying to run after the suspect she told him to stop and he said "OK".

What needs to be discussed is why a 17 year old boy didn't understand the concept that you don't have the right to assault someone because they looked at you funny or followed you.  Where was this kid taking his cues from?  Who was it that was teaching him that violence was the correct response to a situation like that?  Because whoever THAT person is, Clayton?  They got a young man killed.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Pop23 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the press handles it as it should have been handled. If Potus allows the state to handle it, it's simply another case that the court handles and the world moves on
> 
> Yet that is NOT what happened
> 
> Using my example, and the logic of those who want Zimmerman jailed, then the Hispanic female had two choices once the assault started
> 
> Shoot the young man, or
> 
> Let him finish and report the rape later
> 
> Which is right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously George was able to convince a jury that he was under attack when he fired his weapon and under similar circumstances I would have pulled the trigger too.  Tell her to shoot the young man.
> 
> Obviously I'm not going to 'defend her attacker' in your scenario, and I'm not defending Mr Martin either.  As I said *both* of those boys fucked up.
> 
> I still say that this average Joe, and most any woman out there, would *not* have been stupid enough to ignore the advice of the 911 operator and engage.
> 
> Would George have been as stupid as he was had he been unarmed?  Is it smart to give the borderline stupid access to enough firepower to tip them over the edge?
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, there is no doubt that I respect you. I have no doubt in most situations you would act in the best interest of all parties involved
> 
> Yet, we as a society MIGHT have a problem, which maybe we should have a discussion about, but using a man who WAS having his head slammed against pavement after having taking a sucker punch that knocked him down IS NOT how we should settle this
> 
> To do so is to place all of societies sins at the foot of this individual
> 
> By doing that we, in effect, are defending the rapist
> 
> Again, I am not saying you are, but unless I hear a coherent argument that the rapist (in my example) can be defended, then this whole thing is simply political folly.
Click to expand...


Best thing we can do for the future is discuss this stuff openly.  And you're right  - this case has been a political football from the start.

Stupid seems to attract the same.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Gadawg73 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the press handles it as it should have been handled. If Potus allows the state to handle it, it's simply another case that the court handles and the world moves on
> 
> Yet that is NOT what happened
> 
> Using my example, and the logic of those who want Zimmerman jailed, then the Hispanic female had two choices once the assault started
> 
> Shoot the young man, or
> 
> Let him finish and report the rape later
> 
> Which is right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously George was able to convince a jury that he was under attack when he fired his weapon and under similar circumstances I would have pulled the trigger too.  Tell her to shoot the young man.
> 
> Obviously I'm not going to 'defend her attacker' in your scenario, and I'm not defending Mr Martin either.  As I said *both* of those boys fucked up.
> 
> I still say that this average Joe, and most any woman out there, would *not* have been stupid enough to ignore the advice of the 911 operator and engage.
> 
> Would George have been as stupid as he was had he been unarmed?  Is it smart to give the borderline stupid access to enough firepower to tip them over the edge?
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George did not testify and never said a word during the entire trial.
> Did not have to.
Click to expand...

​
Though he probably discussed it a bit with his paid shills before THEY convinced the jury.


The nit-picketty arguing over semantics and wording around here has always baffled me.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Vox said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is - NONE. Gun laws ( meaning gun restriction) CAUSE more deaths than they prevent.
> See death and crime statistics in Chicago.
Click to expand...


That would depend on the definition of *reasonable* now, wouldn't it?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby




----------



## editec

I refuse to weigh in or the guilt or innocence of either the perp or the victim.

I have no respect for those of you who do, either.

NONE of us are in a position to know any more than has been reported by the media.

I refuse to second guess the JURY.

I think what happened was tragic for all concerned, but obviously most tragic for the victim and his family.

I find those of you who are seeking to make this case a lauching pad for you to express your racist or anti-racist attitudes disgusting.

Not one of us is qualified to weight in on this case.

Not one[/I] of yus has ever written a thing worth reading about this case either.

All we can do is express our POVs through the lense of our own prejudices.


----------



## eagle1462010

*But, George Zimmerman is a racist! ...is he?*

The facts in the case state otherwise.  It was shown that he tutored young blacks.  Also, he is Peruvian and not a white person.  It's a far stretch to any reasonable person to make a conclusion like this.  This is MEDIA and POLITICAL HYPE.  Brought on by the Media wanting High Ratings and individuals like Sharpton, Jackson, and even Obama.   Dirty Laundry sells in this country and so they push these style cases to the point that *THEY ARE THE PROBLEM*

*George Zimmerman is innocent. *

Yes and unknown.  The Facts of the case to me push to a Classic Self Defense justification.  The Facts back up the Defense and not the Prosecution.  Zimmerman had a broken nose, and cuts on the back of his head.  The Defense had an Eye Witness which backs up this claim.  The Medical on Zimmerman showed the same.  The Prosecution had nothing but trumped up theories and didn't have the Facts to back up these theories.  They even pushed for Second Degree Murder without Jack to back it up.  I believe this was pushed into trial because of Political and Social Pressures on this case.  The only thing that they should have charged Zimmerman with at all was Manslaughter.  And even this side of the argument is Slim at best.

Unknown.  What I don't know is what took place in that last minute or so.  What words were said before the fight.  So I can't leave out the possibility that Zimmerman may have said some things that caused the fight.  I simply don't know, and Dead men don't talk.  So I can only assume this portion of this case, and go with what I do know.

Which is exactly why I agree with the verdict.

*It's open season on black boys and men.*

A Ridiculous statement brought out by those who benefit on pushing Racial tensions in this country.  They do it for their minute of fame, and the money they make off cases like this.  They hype up cases like this, CAUSE HATE AND DISCONTENT, and then later CALL FOR PEACE even though they are the ones who PUSHED THE ISSUE.  

They are Hypocrits, and this includes the President and Holder.  The POTUS had no business making the statement about Martin could be his son.  Then they call for Peace.  They are the Problem and push to the point of WANTING RACISM.

*Why all of the gloating and jubilation?*

 There is no call for jubilation.  A young man was killed and that family will be hurting for a long time over this.  Martin was shot only going to get a drink and skittles.  Any parent of any color would be ticked about this.  If that were my son I'd be ticked about it.  Which is why this situation is so tragic.

To this point, I'd have to say that Martin should have been able to keep his cool and not push a confrontation.  As I said before I don't know that final minute or so, but it appears from the testimony that he more than likely pushed the final confrontation.

*The true villains in this story. *

The Media, the Sharptons, Jacksons, and the Obamas.  Pushing for a Racial issue that basically forced a trial via Political pressure when there was never enough evidence to convict on anything.  They are the true villains of RACE PROBLEMS HERE IN AMERICA.


*George Zimmerman made no mistakes. *

Doubtful.  He obviously followed instead of hanging back.  While he has a right to do so in a free country, he could have hung back from the get go and maybe none of this would have happened.  He could have also had a taser along with a weapon.  Possible tazing instead of killing Martin.  Even pepper spray.  It would have given him a different option.


*Trayvon Martin was just an unarmed black kid with Skittles. Really?* 

No, the media and those hyping this case were calling him a CHILD.  17 is a young MAN and NOT  CHILD.  Secondly, the case shows via testimony that his last phone call shows an ANGRY YOUNG MAN who has been fed this RACIST BS and called Zimmerman a Cracker.  The Sharptons and Jacksons of this world have FED A HATE into young blacks like this and in cases like this it led to violence and Death.


*He was just a punk. *

Unknown.  I don't know him.  He could have been a nice kid, but the evidence to me shows a young ANGRY BLACK MAN.  The rest is completely unknown to me.

*The jury was racist. *

Media hype.  They made the right call in this case.  The Prosecution helped get this jury in selections.  Best guess is that they thought women would be more sympothetic to their case.

*Who doesn't like mocking this thug?* 

I don't, but the Media does because of Ratings.

*George Zimmerman did nothing but tell the truth.* 

Unknown.

*We have to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law.*

Disagree.  We should have the right to our own defense.  It is a good law and has saved innocent people many times.  The Anti Gun Lobby wants everyone to get rid of all guns, and push for it again every time anything like this comes up.

*Black people are just violent and stupid.*

An assumption that blankets the whole race which is stupid.  It again pushes more Race Problems into this country.

*Retaliation.* 

Limited in this case, but for the same reasons stated above.  The people pushing for Racial Hate cause Retaliation, and then come out as a bunch of Stupid A.........s when they call for Peace.

*A call for peace.*

A call for peace from those who aren't politically motivated is a welcome sight.  To those already mentioned it is BS.  As their very words had ALREADY PUSHED VIOLENCE.  

They are the Problem, NOT THE SOLUTION.  When they shut up maybe Racial BS can end, but not until they shut their Traps up.

If Martin would have been White, would this case have ever been in the Media?
If Zimmerman would have been Black, would this case have ever been in the Media?
If Martin had have killed Zimmerman, would this case have ever been in the Media?

I believe NO.  Which is why the Media and the Jacksons CAUSE RACIAL ISSUES IN THIS COUNTRY.


----------



## eagle1462010

editec said:


> I refuse to weigh in or the guilt or innocence of either the perp or the victim.
> 
> I have no respect for those of you who do, either.
> 
> NONE of us are in a position to know any more than has been reported by the media.
> 
> I refuse to second guess the JURY.
> 
> I think what happened was tragic for all concerned, but obviously most tragic for the victim and his family.
> 
> I find those of you who are seeking to make this case a lauching pad for you to express your racist or anti-racist attitudes disgusting.
> 
> Not one of us is qualified to weight in on this case.
> 
> Not one[/I] of yus has ever written a thing worth reading about this case either.
> 
> All we can do is express our POVs through the lense of our own prejudices.



LOL

Which is the purpose of posting on a forum.  To discuss issues of the day based on what we believe and see as our POVs.

So you don't respect us.................LOL

See my complaint department in the basement section of the 4th portolet to the right.  I'll be sure to get back to you.


----------



## jon_berzerk

*presumed innocent*

Zimmerman was presumed innocent before the trial  he was found not guilty during the trial 

so his innocence remains 

* George Zimmerman is a racist!*

where is the evidence to make that claim 

it certainly was not presented in court 

he certainly was not accused of that in court 

the fbi did an extensive search into Georges past 

interviewing around 40 people 

they found the opposite to be true 

*It's open season on black boys and men*

by black boys and men 

it is about time they figure out a new way to raise the children 

in some ways Tracy Martin should be considered a hero 

at least Trayvon knew who his father was which isnt the case for 

many boys these days 

in 2010 Trayvon rock solid support was pulled out from 

underneath him and he went down hill quickly 

his story is a sad one  

*Why all of the gloating and jubilation?*

who is gloating no one that i have seen

however the system worked 

and a tragedy was not turned into a travesty

the mob does not rule 

and we still live in an age 

where it takes more then 

"could have " " maybe"  "we think so" 

to get a conviction

*The true villains in this story*

there are a lot of them and it could have its own thread 


*George Zimmerman made no mistakes*

George didnt do anything illegal by getting out of his truck 

we could back up the events of that day for both persons 

that may have changed to encounter that night 

but that is pointless 

*He was just a punk*

looking into his lifestyle before the shooting 

he certainly was a wannabe thug 

*We have to get rid of the Stand Your Ground law.*

that is a state issue not one for holder or obama to decide


----------



## Pop23

Removing the stand your ground laws places the burden on the victims and off the criminal. 

Really bad idea.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Pop23 said:


> Removing the stand your ground laws places the burden on the victims and off the criminal.
> 
> Really bad idea.



you see 

obama and holder of the opinion 

that the victim is the criminal and the criminal is the victim


----------



## Vox

AVG-JOE said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frosty questions, but the one that's going to make us look the coldest in the history books is "How many stupid deaths could have been prevented by *reasonable* gun laws?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is - NONE. Gun laws ( meaning gun restriction) CAUSE more deaths than they prevent.
> See death and crime statistics in Chicago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would depend on the definition of *reasonable* now, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## earlycuyler

mudwhistle said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to just sit down and respond to all of these opinions in one extra long response post.  I will address just a few.
> 
> This case was not a case that turned on the guilt or innocence of anyone.   We know George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.  He admitted it.  This case was one that decided whether or not firing that fatal shot was justified.  The jury's verdict was that the act was justified.
> 
> The reason why this case can't be compared to the OJ case is because the OJ case did involve questions of guilt or innocence.   OJ denied being the killer.   He said he didn't do it, someone else did it.  The prosecution could never prove that he committed the acts that led to death beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no issue of whether or not the acts were justified.  The doubt was that it was as reasonable to conclude that someone else killed Goldman and Brown, as it was reasonable to conclude that OJ did it.  With that kind of evidence, the jury has no choice but to acquit.   Just like in the Zimmerman case, once they concluded that Zimmerman was being beaten and felt that he would be beaten to death, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
> 
> Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.   The attacks and vandalism now being played out did not start with Trayvon Martin.  It has been going on for years.  Long, long before the names Martin or Zimmerman were ever heard.  It's an excuse now.  "Bash for Trayvon".   It justifies what they wanted to do and were going to do anyway.
> 
> If the sensible black people do not take charge and get a handle on the kind of violence coming from this part of the nation, there is no hope for them.  None at all.   The brush of violence is so broad that it will absolutely paint each and every black person that walks the streets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is against the law to shoot people for being thugs.* No crime was being committed when GZ was following him. So for all intents and purposes TM was just a guy being followed by another guy. Its as cowardly and lazy to go on about TM being a " thug in training" as it is to constantly inject race. And the Zimmerman groupies are so happy, and never consider that CCW rights as well as stand your ground laws are in danger and those who want them repealed have their poster boy in GZ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act. Felonious assault.
> 
> Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Zimmerman T-shirts.
Click to expand...




That he was a "thug in training" is second only to "he was beating him up" as justification for this shooting. As for the groupies, ya, Zimmerman has just a few compared to TM. Matter of fact, as.far as I have seen the NRA and GOA have not overtly come out in support of GZ. None lobbied or raised funds for his defense. As far as blacks and crime mentioned above, no crime was being committed, only assumed. As for his  "Felonious assault"  TM only did what I or any other man would have done. You guys confuse this as a victory for gun rights, and self defense, but really you are cheering on yet another case that will be evidence that's used to repeal this law and laws like it. In reality, you all know GZ is not the angelic figure who helps old ladies across the street, and throwing his hankie over mud puddles. At best, he was a plodding moron wannabe cop, who had he just stayed on his car, and done it as his community watch organizer trained him to do it none of this would have happened. So yeah, you guys are as bad as Sharpton, holder, Jackson, and the President.


----------



## earlycuyler

Pop23 said:


> Removing the stand your ground laws places the burden on the victims and off the criminal.
> 
> Really bad idea.



And Zimmerman is the poster boy for this movement. Even after shootings (done right) the idea never gained steam, but now ? Who knows.


----------



## PredFan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But, George Zimmerman is a racist!* ...is he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with Zimmermans innocence, well never know.
> 
> Three other things well never know:
> 
> Why did Zimmerman ignore the dispatchers instructions?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman leave the safety of his own car only to place himself into a potentially dangerous situation?
> 
> And what compelled Zimmerman to pursue Martin at all, failing to allow the police to investigate?
> 
> Zimmerman not withstanding, citizens have the right to be racist. They have the right to believe all young black men are potential criminals, and they have the right to take precautions predicated on that fear, hate, and ignorance. But they must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their racism.
> 
> The Zimmerman trial is over, and the correct verdict rendered; theres nothing more to discuss, as the trial is now part of Florida case law.
> 
> What does need to be discussed, however, is how to ensure citizens understand the law, what constitutes self-defense and what does not, and how to protect oneself in the context of this case law.
Click to expand...


Zimmerman Zimmerman Zimmerman.

Why do you blame him?

Why didn't Trayvon go in his house when he got to it and get his dad?

Why didn't Trayvon call 9-11?

Why did Trayvon double back and confront Zimmerman?

Why did Trayvon assault Zimmerman?


----------



## jon_berzerk

earlycuyler said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Removing the stand your ground laws places the burden on the victims and off the criminal.
> 
> Really bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Zimmerman is the poster boy for this movement. Even after shootings (done right) the idea never gained steam, but now ? Who knows.
Click to expand...


during the trial we heard over and over 

how the ll female jury was going to "side" with martins mom 

an emotional bond that would surely convict zimmerman 

wonder how many of the jury placed their kids 

under martins mma style ground and pound 

i guess that would be the question i would ask 

the jurors if i could ask a question


----------



## earlycuyler

PredFan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But, George Zimmerman is a racist!* ...is he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with Zimmermans innocence, well never know.
> 
> Three other things well never know:
> 
> Why did Zimmerman ignore the dispatchers instructions?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman leave the safety of his own car only to place himself into a potentially dangerous situation?
> 
> And what compelled Zimmerman to pursue Martin at all, failing to allow the police to investigate?
> 
> Zimmerman not withstanding, citizens have the right to be racist. They have the right to believe all young black men are potential criminals, and they have the right to take precautions predicated on that fear, hate, and ignorance. But they must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their racism.
> 
> The Zimmerman trial is over, and the correct verdict rendered; theres nothing more to discuss, as the trial is now part of Florida case law.
> 
> What does need to be discussed, however, is how to ensure citizens understand the law, what constitutes self-defense and what does not, and how to protect oneself in the context of this case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman Zimmerman Zimmerman.
> 
> Why do you blame him?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon go in his house when he got to it and get his dad?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon call 9-11?
> 
> Why did Trayvon double back and confront Zimmerman?
> 
> Why did Trayvon assault Zimmerman?
Click to expand...


Likely because he was not doing anything wrong, and did not expect to get shot in the chest that night. Zimmerman went out of his way to include him self in Trayvon Martins life.


----------



## earlycuyler

jon_berzerk said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Removing the stand your ground laws places the burden on the victims and off the criminal.
> 
> Really bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Zimmerman is the poster boy for this movement. Even after shootings (done right) the idea never gained steam, but now ? Who knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> during the trial we heard over and over
> 
> how the ll female jury was going to "side" with martins mom
> 
> an emotional bond that would surely convict zimmerman
> 
> wonder how many of the jury placed their kids
> 
> under martins mma style ground and pound
> 
> i guess that would be the question i would ask
> 
> the jurors if i could ask a question
Click to expand...



Had they been doing what Zimmermas was then they would have earned that ass whipping. Lesson learned, get on with your life.


----------



## eagle1462010

> [/That he was a "thug in training" is second only to "he was beating him up" as justification for this shooting. As for the groupies, ya, Zimmerman has just a few compared to TM. Matter of fact, as.far as I have seen the NRA and GOA have not overtly come out in support of GZ. None lobbied or raised funds for his defense. As far as blacks and crime mentioned above, no crime was being committed, only assumed. As for his "Felonious assault" TM only did what I or any other man would have done. You guys confuse this as a victory for gun rights, and self defense, but really you are cheering on yet another case that will be evidence that's used to repeal this law and laws like it. In reality, you all know GZ is not the angelic figure who helps old ladies across the street, and throwing his hankie over mud puddles. At best, he was a plodding moron wannabe cop, who had he just stayed on his car, and done it as his community watch organizer trained him to do it none of this would have happened. So yeah, you guys are as bad as Sharpton, holder, Jackson, and the President.QUOTE]
> 
> Community Watches do what?  WATCH............
> 
> Watch for suspicious individuals or situations and report them to the police to try and cut down on crime.
> 
> They are generally only formed in areas were Crime has become a problem.  Back in the day, we had Neighborhood watches that did the same Dang thing.  People volunteered to try and stop the crime and volunteered to help out.
> 
> This is what I believe happened here.  A local tired of the crimes in the area hoping to make a difference and make this area a better place to live.  If he had MALICIOUS intent he would have never even called the police about it.
> 
> While I'd be ticked if followed I wouldn't turn around and start POUNDING A PERSON'S HEAD INTO THE GROUND because he was watching me and following me.  Martin could have hung up the phone and called the police as Zimmerman did, but my gut instinct is he turned around and went back to start a fight and did, ending in his death.  Had he just punched Zimmerman and not started pounding his head into the pavement, he'd probably still be alive today.  Because quite frankly, I don't think Zimmerman would have pulled a gun and killed him if his head wasn't being pounded into the pavement.
> 
> This is a bad deal.  A young man is dead, but you are portraying Zimmerman as thinking he's Charles Bronson or something is just plain Stupid.


----------



## justoffal

Well done indeed..

I have much to say ....but no time right now.

Excellent closing....

But consider this...

Obie, Holder.......are Anarchists......dedicated to the themes of Alinsky and Cloward/Piven..

The current poltical confligration is a perfect vehicle for that end...

JO


----------



## Pop23

earlycuyler said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Zimmerman is the poster boy for this movement. Even after shootings (done right) the idea never gained steam, but now ? Who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> during the trial we heard over and over
> 
> how the ll female jury was going to "side" with martins mom
> 
> an emotional bond that would surely convict zimmerman
> 
> wonder how many of the jury placed their kids
> 
> under martins mma style ground and pound
> 
> i guess that would be the question i would ask
> 
> the jurors if i could ask a question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Had they been doing what Zimmermas was then they would have earned that ass whipping. Lesson learned, get on with your life.
Click to expand...


Indeed, you are on the ground having your head pounded onto a concrete sidewalk, you would just lay there and take it, knowing full well you had  a gun that could save your life.

Yup, I think I get it now. The Travon Martin boosters are suicidal maniacs.

Is there seriously any question that, as a juror, asking yourself, what would you do, that this jury acted incorrectly?

Geez.....


----------



## AVG-JOE

birddog said:


> When I get my NRA magazine each month, the first thing I read is the page of true stories where lives are saved by having a gun.  I have been a card carrying member of the NRA for many years, and I trust their statistics  and research.  Common sense says that* responsible *citizens that are armed save lives.
> 
> Of course, rare accidents with guns happen, but the good far outweighs the bad regarding gun ownership.





Key word.


----------



## Pheonixops

freedombecki said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that he was not the aggressor.
> 
> Also, the state's prime witness reversed her lying court testimony of "Trayvon cried for help and the other guy was on top" to "Trayvon whooped cracka's ass." during her first post trial interview. This female lying is not uncommon in cases in which Al Sharpton inures witnesses repeatedly into the process of decimating a white person for living. He has come to the conclusion that if one is black, one is right, to hell with what the law says. And he somehow surrounds himself with the meconium of purile black persons who are urged to commit perjury against white people. He's full of rancor and hate.
> 
> Cases in which Sharpton involved himself: (1) Twanna Brawley lies about unknown white assailants (2) Chrystal Magnum lie about rape (Duke Lacrosse Team)
> 
> *Black citizens have maggots like Sharpton fooling them, and that's why they get loser syndrome every time Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step up to the plate.* These men have made themselves disreputable over and over and over. When they take over with their smear campaigns and make everyone indignant, they take a lot of money home with them and live like kings. The nation needs to reconsider perjury laws and enforce them, and quit falling for blackmail threats of incitation of pandemic mob violence. It's time to call bluff and duke it out.
> 
> *The black community will not heal itself if it gets a constant supply of federal support for bad behaviors.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that pretty ignorant and insulting; what percentage of the "Black community" do you think follows the likes of Sharpton and Jackson? Do you think that Black people can also be individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> What percentage of "the Black community" is receiving federal support? Is federal support solely for Black people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> * I find that pretty ignorant and insulting;*
> 
> Not following you down OffTopic Lane.
Click to expand...


I edited my post. For the record; I didn't state that I find you ignorant or insulting.


----------



## Oldstyle

earlycuyler said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with Zimmermans innocence, well never know.
> 
> Three other things well never know:
> 
> Why did Zimmerman ignore the dispatchers instructions?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman leave the safety of his own car only to place himself into a potentially dangerous situation?
> 
> And what compelled Zimmerman to pursue Martin at all, failing to allow the police to investigate?
> 
> Zimmerman not withstanding, citizens have the right to be racist. They have the right to believe all young black men are potential criminals, and they have the right to take precautions predicated on that fear, hate, and ignorance. But they must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their racism.
> 
> The Zimmerman trial is over, and the correct verdict rendered; theres nothing more to discuss, as the trial is now part of Florida case law.
> 
> What does need to be discussed, however, is how to ensure citizens understand the law, what constitutes self-defense and what does not, and how to protect oneself in the context of this case law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman Zimmerman Zimmerman.
> 
> Why do you blame him?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon go in his house when he got to it and get his dad?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon call 9-11?
> 
> Why did Trayvon double back and confront Zimmerman?
> 
> Why did Trayvon assault Zimmerman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely because he was not doing anything wrong, and did not expect to get shot in the chest that night. Zimmerman went out of his way to include him self in Trayvon Martins life.
Click to expand...


I'm baffled by this whole concept that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong, Cuyler.  He committed Assault & Battery on someone who's only transgression against him was to follow him at a distance while talking to the Police on the phone.  Trayvon Martin got shot in the chest that night because he punched someone in the face, knocked them down and then sat on them and continued to beat them.  How is that not "wrong"?  How do you make that leap of logic?


----------



## Pop23

earlycuyler said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with Zimmermans innocence, well never know.
> 
> Three other things well never know:
> 
> Why did Zimmerman ignore the dispatchers instructions?
> 
> Why did Zimmerman leave the safety of his own car only to place himself into a potentially dangerous situation?
> 
> And what compelled Zimmerman to pursue Martin at all, failing to allow the police to investigate?
> 
> Zimmerman not withstanding, citizens have the right to be racist. They have the right to believe all young black men are potential criminals, and they have the right to take precautions predicated on that fear, hate, and ignorance. But they must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their racism.
> 
> The Zimmerman trial is over, and the correct verdict rendered; theres nothing more to discuss, as the trial is now part of Florida case law.
> 
> What does need to be discussed, however, is how to ensure citizens understand the law, what constitutes self-defense and what does not, and how to protect oneself in the context of this case law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman Zimmerman Zimmerman.
> 
> Why do you blame him?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon go in his house when he got to it and get his dad?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon call 9-11?
> 
> Why did Trayvon double back and confront Zimmerman?
> 
> Why did Trayvon assault Zimmerman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely because he was not doing anything wrong, and did not expect to get shot in the chest that night. Zimmerman went out of his way to include him self in Trayvon Martins life.
Click to expand...


You take all the above steps when you are not doing anything wrong. Is there a point? Parents TEACH their children these things from an early age, at least RESPONSIBLE parents do.

Zimmerman MAY have gone out of his way to inject himself into Martins life. But the way he did WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL. Martin then injected himself into Zimmermans life in a way that was ILLEGAL.

It's not just me saying so, it is a jury.


----------



## Wake

The one tidbit I'm a bit fussy over is whether or not he's innocent. I don't believe that being found "not guilty" means you're absolutely innocent. There are plenty of people who were found guilty but then decades later found to have been completely innocent. Conversely, I'm sure there are those who really did do evil, murderous things but were found "not guilty" by the state whether due to weak/no evidence, being really good at deceit, etc. The state found GZ "not guilty," but my contention is that it's at least _remotely possible _that George really did do wrong but got away with it.


----------



## Oldstyle

earlycuyler said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Zimmerman is the poster boy for this movement. Even after shootings (done right) the idea never gained steam, but now ? Who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> during the trial we heard over and over
> 
> how the ll female jury was going to "side" with martins mom
> 
> an emotional bond that would surely convict zimmerman
> 
> wonder how many of the jury placed their kids
> 
> under martins mma style ground and pound
> 
> i guess that would be the question i would ask
> 
> the jurors if i could ask a question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Had they been doing what Zimmermas was then they would have earned that ass whipping. Lesson learned, get on with your life.
Click to expand...


You "earn" an ass whipping for caring about your neighborhood and the people that live there?  I'm guessing that you're one of those people that doesn't "get involved"?  That turns around and walks the other way when you hear screams for help?  Kitty Genovese had people like you for neighbors.


----------



## Pop23

Oldstyle said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman Zimmerman Zimmerman.
> 
> Why do you blame him?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon go in his house when he got to it and get his dad?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon call 9-11?
> 
> Why did Trayvon double back and confront Zimmerman?
> 
> Why did Trayvon assault Zimmerman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely because he was not doing anything wrong, and did not expect to get shot in the chest that night. Zimmerman went out of his way to include him self in Trayvon Martins life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm baffled by this whole concept that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong, Cuyler.  He committed Assault & Battery on someone who's only transgression against him was to follow him at a distance while talking to the Police on the phone.  Trayvon Martin got shot in the chest that night because he punched someone in the face, knocked them down and then sat on them and continued to beat them.  How is that not "wrong"?  How do you make that leap of logic?
Click to expand...


Why are you baffled? 

The left were counting on Zimmerman to be the poster boy for stricter gun control. When it turned out that a jury, even under pressure from the POTUS to convict him found him innocent, it drove them crazy. They are crazed beyond belief over this.

Understand, to the progressive liberal, the Individual has NO value except as a scape goat for their emotional beliefs. Zimmerman did not lay down at the alter of the masses, so he should be destroyed.

Oh, and by the way, the jury found him not guilty. Our justice system is based on the defendant being "Innocent until proven guilty" the jury said that Zimmerman remains innocent until PROVEN guilty. Guilty has never been PROVEN, therefore he is innocent and this group of thugs cannot change that fact. They are going after an innocent man to forward their political agenda.


----------



## Pop23

Wake said:


> The one tidbit I'm a bit fussy over is whether or not he's innocent. I don't believe that being found "not guilty" means you're absolutely innocent. There are plenty of people who were found guilty but then decades later found to have been completely innocent. Conversely, I'm sure there are those who really did do evil, murderous things but were found "not guilty" by the state whether due to weak/no evidence, being really good at deceit, etc. The state found GZ "not guilty," but my contention is that it's at least _remotely possible _that George really did do wrong but got away with it.



Then you do not believe in the justice system.

A man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Unless you are judged guilty, you ARE innocent.

There is no doubt, unless you do not believe in the basic concept that only a jury can take away your status as an innocent.


----------



## earlycuyler

Oldstyle said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman Zimmerman Zimmerman.
> 
> Why do you blame him?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon go in his house when he got to it and get his dad?
> 
> Why didn't Trayvon call 9-11?
> 
> Why did Trayvon double back and confront Zimmerman?
> 
> Why did Trayvon assault Zimmerman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely because he was not doing anything wrong, and did not expect to get shot in the chest that night. Zimmerman went out of his way to include him self in Trayvon Martins life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm baffled by this whole concept that Trayvon Martin did nothing wrong, Cuyler.  He committed Assault & Battery on someone who's only transgression against him was to follow him at a distance while talking to the Police on the phone.  Trayvon Martin got shot in the chest that night because he punched someone in the face, knocked them down and then sat on them and continued to beat them.  How is that not "wrong"?  How do you make that leap of logic?
Click to expand...


From now on keep your comments out here and not in PMs . I won't respond to any more. Anyway, had Zimmerman acted under the dictates of his neighborhood watch program and observed from the car Martin would not have felt the need to assault Zimmerman.


----------



## namvet

ive said it before. if this dead kid is white its just local new. and he was killed by a latino not a white as the retard liberal MSM wants you to believe.  Zimmermans' attorney has filed suit against NBC for portraying him as racist. i do hope she takes those cocksuckers to the cleaners. a chapter 11 would deliver the message.


----------



## numan

'
I have paid very little attention to this case. As so often with American media circuses, it is deliberately designed to distract people's attention from more important matters. Unlike most Americans, I do not like being led by the nose and brainwashed.

Moreover, it seems clear to me that no rational person could have an informed opinion on the matter. We will never know what really happened in the crucial minute or two of this unfortunate event. I suspect there is enough blame to go around to both parties.

The more significant aspect of this affair is the American public's reaction to it.

A tedious and repugnant aspect of the American character is the tendency to jump to conclusions without adequate evidence. This tendency to humorless, belligerent self-importance makes a distressingly large proportion of the population determined to have an opinion on _every_ subject -- no matter how ill-informed they may be.

One of the many delights of living outside the borders of the United States is meeting people who, when asked for their opinion on a matter, will actually say, "Oh, I don't know enough about the matter to have an intelligent opinion."

How seldom one meets such enlightened people in the USA, and how delightful it is when one does!!

*NOTE:* I have, on a number of occasions, had the unpleasant experience of being asked by a reporter for my opinion on some matter. Since, on principle, I am determined not to provide grist or profit to the lying, brainwashing media, I answer, *"Oh, I don't know enough about the matter to have an intelligent opinion."*

I highly recommend this tactic to leave a reporter utterly frustrated.

.


----------



## Pheonixops

Oldstyle said:


> Let's examine this case through "the looking glass" as it were...
> 
> Let's pretend that Trayvon Martin is a 17 year old white kid, on his way home from visiting the 7/11 when George Zimmerman, the African-American Captain of the Neighborhood Watch group spots him.  Let's also pretend that the gated community that our black George Zimmerman is driving through has been victimized by white teens breaking into houses.  So when our black George sees this strange white teen, he calls the Police to report him as being suspicious.  When the teen runs off our black George tries to keep him in sight so he can tell the Police where the boy is.
> 
> In the meantime our white teen is on the phone with his Cracker friend who he tells that he's being followed by a "creepy assed ******".  He then leaves the safety of the condo he's staying at...walks back to confront our black George Zimmerman...punches him in the face, knocks him to the ground, mounts him and continues to beat him.
> 
> *Now you tell me...would the main stream media take "black George Zimmerman" over the coals for shooting our "white Trayvon Martin"?  Would there be nationwide protests if he was found not guilty of murder for protecting himself?*



In my opinion, hell yeah. They would show the same innocent pictures of the little white kid and demonize the black guy in one way or another. I can almost guarantee you that people would have been calling for his head because he got out of the truck of followed that little white teen who was afraid for his life and only when he felt cornered by "the mean black guy" did he strike out in self defense.


----------



## Pheonixops

thanatos144 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was found not guilty.
> 
> Whether he is innocent or not well never know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know its hard for you to process but a not guilty verdict in a self defense trial means innocent.....
Click to expand...


Do you think tat O.J. was "innocent"?


----------



## JohnA

This case defines were the country is now regarding racism.
  it exists and the  flames are being fanned by the likes of  al sharpton &   jesse jackson .
  al sharpton should be preaching love & peace to a church congregation which is what his job discription ( reverand  ) entails  
  jesse jackson should  be spending more time consoling his son who is serving  time in a prison  
  .  having got that opinion of my chest now we can talk about racism  and as it applies to this case .

 some folks will find racism is anything and everything ,  a cop in wait looking for speeders  pulls a car over and the  driver  is  black he/her will play the race card  as if the cop only has eyes for the color of the driver, who is going as a fast sped  past  his speed gun set up on his police  cruiser .
 a A/A  refused employment over another who happens  to be white will shout discrimination to0 whom ever will listen  the fact the white has more qualifications will not be a factor in his /her wailing 
 in these examples and many others is race profiling present  ???  yes  could be in some absent in others .
 in the zimmerman case there is  no evidence of race profiling what so ever and his actions did not justify  his being charged  with murder 2 . ill  explain below why i  believe that .


 zimmerman was i neighborhood   watch captain , and as such his *duty* was to patrol the community  which had in recent months a lot of petty larceny  looking for suspicious  activity by persons known or unknown  (martin)  was unknown to him   it was dark and raining  in the shadows he* zimmerman* sees a fiqure walking  slowly along the grass verge of the complex so he informs the police  during the questioning the remarks * these  punks get away with it * or similar words to the dispatcher 
 >>punks << a slang word used to identify a *person up to no good * or a rock band  when applied to a human it transends all races   many so called punks are white and so are most punk bands .no  racial profiling there 
the dispatcher asked zimmerman about natio0nality and he answered he  looks  black  FAIR    answer to a FAIR question asked to help the police  in there identifying  of the person  if he needed  to be apprehended, 
  NOTE asked all the time in questioning the public on receiving a call for assistance 
 usually   a block of questions
(1) male or female 
(2 )  race 
(3 ) height  weight  etc 
again  no racial  profiling there  just a nest of questions needed to open a investigation .

 zimmerman approached  martin and words where exchanged ( martin is reported to have said why are you following me) ? no evidence as to zimermans answer 
 after that its not clear what  happened thats  why he was found not quilty 
  we must use common sense  and logic to assume what  happened next but given some young folks attitude  i have experianced martin proberly got upset about being approached  by a *cracker *and questioned  and instead of running straight home   *as the phone calls to his girl friend suggests* he copped a attitude  comfrounded zimmerman knocking him to the ground .
the rest we know 

zimmerman did many things wrong .
 first of all he should NEVER have carried a gun against the HOA rules and rather stupid .
  second he  proberly  didnt identify himself  and told martin why he was patroling the complex  to *protect his  martins * home as well as everybody elses .
 thirdly not  doing what the  dispatcher  advised him to do  not at approach  the suspect .
opening his  mouth on television talk shows .

 martin did some  things   wrong 
(1)  by  not realizing this mans was doing a community service and respecting that fact 
(2 ) by walking  in the dark  slowly looking around instead  of walking quickly  and directly  to  his home which was a few minutes away  it was raining after all why linger ??? 
 zimmerman 
 committed no crime by 
 following martin .
 although foolish and ill advised carrying a gun. 
  getting out of the car .
 many thing zimmerman could have been charged with the LAST being murder 2
 infact the  prosecution tried to bring in child  abuse when they saw there case was going downhill  .

we dont have a offence on the books here in the USA  for stupidity  if so zimmerman and half of the  nation would  be appearing in court 
.no evidence of racial profiling was presented and the jury came in with the only verdict that was possible, self defence  NOT GUILTY  

 nobody except the two who were there really knows what happened on that fatefull night 
a young  mans was killed
 another  has had his life changed  forever 
 much public money had been spent   
racial harmony has been   put back a decade *thanks to al & jesse * 
the country has been divided  as never known before 
 the press should be  proud of them selves for  helping to achieve this divide .
 those against the  2nd amendment  have been given further false info to further their   attack on it  
 while we have been  unhealthily occupied by this story  the govt has been free to  deny and take away more of our freedoms 

 the AGOTUS  has shown his commitment to a socialist country   and disregard for the  constitution 

likewise the POTUS 

Meanwhile  blacks by the hundreds are being killed by others blacks in cities like 
chicago  
 new york 
 dc
los angeles  
 who speaks for them  ?? 

where are you al sharpton ? 

 sorry i forgot your busy in florida


----------



## earlycuyler

Pop23 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> during the trial we heard over and over
> 
> how the ll female jury was going to "side" with martins mom
> 
> an emotional bond that would surely convict zimmerman
> 
> wonder how many of the jury placed their kids
> 
> under martins mma style ground and pound
> 
> i guess that would be the question i would ask
> 
> the jurors if i could ask a question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had they been doing what Zimmermas was then they would have earned that ass whipping. Lesson learned, get on with your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you are on the ground having your head pounded onto a concrete sidewalk, you would just lay there and take it, knowing full well you had  a gun that could save your life.
> 
> Yup, I think I get it now. The Travon Martin boosters are suicidal maniacs.
> 
> Is there seriously any question that, as a juror, asking yourself, what would you do, that this jury acted incorrectly?
> 
> Geez.....
Click to expand...


I would not have been that situation, as I would simply have stayed in my car on the phone with 911.


----------



## Pop23

earlycuyler said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had they been doing what Zimmermas was then they would have earned that ass whipping. Lesson learned, get on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you are on the ground having your head pounded onto a concrete sidewalk, you would just lay there and take it, knowing full well you had  a gun that could save your life.
> 
> Yup, I think I get it now. The Travon Martin boosters are suicidal maniacs.
> 
> Is there seriously any question that, as a juror, asking yourself, what would you do, that this jury acted incorrectly?
> 
> Geez.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not have been that situation, as I would simply have stayed in my car on the phone with 911.
Click to expand...


Anyone could have found themselves in that situation. ANYONE!

You never know what you would do until you are in the situation.

You then have only two choices. Lay and take it, hoping for the best, that you survive, or, if armed, shoot the attacker.

This is not a difficult concept to understand. Why so many have a tough time with this is what should be debated, not Zimmerman.


----------



## georgiapeach

Wake said:


> The state found GZ "not guilty," but my contention is that it's at least _remotely possible _that George really did do wrong but got away with it.


Zimmerman killed someone before they killed him.  Did he do wrong?


----------



## PaulS1950

Those against the verdict seem to forget that Martin attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman was returning to his car. Zimmerman was not following Martin then - he had lost track of Martin. 
Furthermore the "incident" on trial was the time period after the following had stopped and whether or not Zimmerman was a criminal for killing his attacker. As a matter of legal fact in this case Martin was the criminal. He attacked Zimmerman, committing the felony of assault and battery, which threatened the life of Zimmerman (at least in his mind). Zimmerman defended himself in the only way he could.
Zimmerman is innocent of the commission of any crime related to this incident.
"Poor" judgement, "what ifs" and our personal morals or lack thereof are not part of this case, nor should they be. A man was attacked by another who was in the process of committing a felony in that attack and he killed to defend his own life.
Is it regrettable? Yes - for both parties. It is regrettable that Martin didn't refrain from attacking. It is regrettable that Zimmerman had to defend himself using deadly force. It is regrettable that Martin's family lost their son, brother friend or what have you. It is regrettable that Zimmerman will have to live with taking that life for the rest of his.
It is stupid and nonsensical to judge the jury by their verdict. The verdict is out and recorded. Zimmerman is innocent of any criminal action by reason of the verdict - if nothing else.

What should come out of this case is that if you are attacked by surprise or design, and you are the one laying against the ground, taking a beating, do you have the right to defend yourself or not?
The answer is YES! even a dog or cat in that situation has a right to defend itself, so certainly a person does.


----------



## dilloduck

I don't understand why blacks don't want to have the legal right to defend themselves. I sure want them to have it.


----------



## Pop23

dilloduck said:


> I don't understand why blacks don't want to have the legal right to defend themselves. I sure want them to have it.



All the questions about Zimmerman, that he was asking for a beating reminds me of the rapist who's defense was that the women he raped was dressed in such a manner she was asking to be raped....

That was a loser as is all the Travon Martin defenses that Zimmerman was asking to be assaulted.

Do you think if the women in question had a gun and shot the rapist, the libs would be defending him?


----------



## dilloduck

earlycuyler said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had they been doing what Zimmermas was then they would have earned that ass whipping. Lesson learned, get on with your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you are on the ground having your head pounded onto a concrete sidewalk, you would just lay there and take it, knowing full well you had  a gun that could save your life.
> 
> Yup, I think I get it now. The Travon Martin boosters are suicidal maniacs.
> 
> Is there seriously any question that, as a juror, asking yourself, what would you do, that this jury acted incorrectly?
> 
> Geez.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not have been that situation, as I would simply have stayed in my car on the phone with 911.
Click to expand...


Is that what life has come to ? Hiding in our homes and cars ?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Wake said:


> The one tidbit I'm a bit fussy over is whether or not he's innocent. I don't believe that being found "not guilty" means you're absolutely innocent. There are plenty of people who were found guilty but then decades later found to have been completely innocent. Conversely, I'm sure there are those who really did do evil, murderous things but were found "not guilty" by the state whether due to weak/no evidence, being really good at deceit, etc. The state found GZ "not guilty," but my contention is that it's at least _remotely possible _that George really did do wrong but got away with it.



Depends on what you mean by "do wrong".  

George is the first to admit that he's guilty of killing Trayvon - the fact of his action is not in question.

Did George do wrong according to the letter of the law?  Apparently not.

Did Trayvon do wrong according to the letter of the law?  We'll never have the documentation of a trial to tell one way.

Did either do wrong via sheer stupidity?  In this Joe's average opinion, both are guilty, but stupidity ain't illegal, and that shouldn't change.

Did they do wrong according to the spirit of the law, as in live and let live in peace?  My score-card on that one is George -3 and Trayvon -7.

Few things in this world are black and white.  Which keeps things interesting, at least.


----------



## dilloduck

Pheonixops said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine this case through "the looking glass" as it were...
> 
> Let's pretend that Trayvon Martin is a 17 year old white kid, on his way home from visiting the 7/11 when George Zimmerman, the African-American Captain of the Neighborhood Watch group spots him.  Let's also pretend that the gated community that our black George Zimmerman is driving through has been victimized by white teens breaking into houses.  So when our black George sees this strange white teen, he calls the Police to report him as being suspicious.  When the teen runs off our black George tries to keep him in sight so he can tell the Police where the boy is.
> 
> In the meantime our white teen is on the phone with his Cracker friend who he tells that he's being followed by a "creepy assed ******".  He then leaves the safety of the condo he's staying at...walks back to confront our black George Zimmerman...punches him in the face, knocks him to the ground, mounts him and continues to beat him.
> 
> *Now you tell me...would the main stream media take "black George Zimmerman" over the coals for shooting our "white Trayvon Martin"?  Would there be nationwide protests if he was found not guilty of murder for protecting himself?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, hell yeah. They would show the same innocent pictures of the little white kid and demonize the black guy in one way or another. I can almost guarantee you that people would have been calling for his head because he got out of the truck of followed that little white teen who was afraid for his life and only when he felt cornered by "the mean black guy" did he strike out in self defense.
Click to expand...


you can almost guarantee it ? Really ?


----------



## Katzndogz

Pop23 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why blacks don't want to have the legal right to defend themselves. I sure want them to have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions about Zimmerman, that he was asking for a beating reminds me of the rapist who's defense was that the women he raped was dressed in such a manner she was asking to be raped....
> 
> That was a loser as is all the Travon Martin defenses that Zimmerman was asking to be assaulted.
> 
> Do you think if the women in question had a gun and shot the rapist, the libs would be defending him?
Click to expand...


Absolutely, not a doubt.


----------



## Katzndogz

Suppose Zimmerman was attacked by Martin and didn't have a gun, but was able to beat the holy crap out of the 17 year old fighter.   Would that be "child abuse"?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Pheonixops said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was found not guilty.
> 
> Whether he is &#8216;innocent&#8217; or not we&#8217;ll never know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know its hard for you to process but a not guilty verdict in a self defense trial means innocent.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think tat O.J. was "innocent"?
Click to expand...


Of killing his wife, or just in general?


----------



## Mertex

Katzndogz said:


> It's hard to just sit down and respond to all of these opinions in one extra long response post.  I will address just a few.


  You're right about that, but I wanted to comment on your comments, too.

Also, he just mentioned Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, as being responsible for inciting the left, but Faux News, Hannity and other right-wing media also played up the right-wing side by fanning the flames and assuming that GZ was innocent from the start.



> This case was not a case that turned on the guilt or innocence of anyone.   We know George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.  He admitted it.  This case was one that decided whether or not firing that fatal shot was justified.  The jury's verdict was that the act was justified.


I agree with that.



> The reason why this case can't be compared to the OJ case is because the OJ case did involve questions of guilt or innocence.   OJ denied being the killer.   He said he didn't do it, someone else did it.  The prosecution could never prove that he committed the acts that led to death beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no issue of whether or not the acts were justified.  The doubt was that it was as reasonable to conclude that someone else killed Goldman and Brown, as it was reasonable to conclude that OJ did it.  With that kind of evidence, the jury has no choice but to acquit.   Just like in the Zimmerman case, once they concluded that Zimmerman was being beaten and felt that he would be beaten to death, the jury had no choice but to acquit.


But there never was solid proof that TM was the one that attacked GZ.  That is all speculation based on GZ's account and taken at face value.  We know that GZ got out of his car, if he was truly afraid, he wouldn't have done that.  Maybe he wasn't afraid at that time, and felt pretty confident since he had a gun?  We don't know, but his story about looking for a street sign was pretty flaky since he lived in that area for some time and there are only 3 streets.  That in itself tells me that GZ wanted a confrontation, and because he had a gun he was not afraid of it.



> Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.


I don't know that TM was a thug in training.  He was just a teenager.  Most teenagers get into scraps at one time or another.  He didn't have a record and wasn't even carrying a knife.  Even if TM threw the first punch, we really don't know what GZ said to him or how he approached him, all we know is what he tells us because none of the witnesses were there at this point in the encounter.  But it could have been GZ pushed him or just confronted him.  It is all speculation.



> There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.   The attacks and vandalism now being played out did not start with Trayvon Martin.  It has been going on for years.  Long, long before the names Martin or Zimmerman were ever heard.  It's an excuse now.  "Bash for Trayvon".   It justifies what they wanted to do and were going to do anyway.


I don't know where you get that information.  Maybe in a ghetto or a gang infested neighborhood, but most blacks I know don't feel or act that way.  Perhaps if we "whites" experienced the same injustices in the courts, we would start reacting the same way?  You can't just look at one side and cast blame.  The comments being made by "whites" against a kid who is dead are truly insensitive and unwarranted.  He is dead.  One has a signature indicating that he "hates TM and wishes he is in hell" just makes you wonder where all that hate comes from.  Why would anyone feel that way about someone that is dead,  they don't know and have never met and don't know if what GZ said about the incident is the truth?  I felt that GZ should have at least gotten manslaughter or probation, but I don't hate GZ and don't wish him ill-will.


> If the sensible black people do not take charge and get a handle on the kind of violence coming from this part of the nation, there is no hope for them.  None at all.   The brush of violence is so broad that it will absolutely paint each and every black person that walks the streets.


I think that us whites need to re-asses our laws and our justice system and look into why blacks are treated more severely for the same crime than whites.  As a Christian I do not like injustice and unfairness and skin color isn't something that we acquire on our own, we have nothing to do with it.  God made us the way we are, we didn't make ourselves and being proud of something we had no part in doing is dumb.  And for those that don't believe in God, well, you also had nothing to do with the color of your skin.


----------



## Mertex

Katzndogz said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why blacks don't want to have the legal right to defend themselves. I sure want them to have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions about Zimmerman, that he was asking for a beating reminds me of the rapist who's defense was that the women he raped was dressed in such a manner she was asking to be raped....
> 
> That was a loser as is all the Travon Martin defenses that Zimmerman was asking to be assaulted.
> 
> Do you think if the women in question had a gun and shot the rapist, the libs would be defending him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely, not a doubt.
Click to expand...

Seriously?  I think the conservatives would be more likely to defend him, because he had a gun.


----------



## Mertex

Pop23 said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one tidbit I'm a bit fussy over is whether or not he's innocent. I don't believe that being found "not guilty" means you're absolutely innocent. There are plenty of people who were found guilty but then decades later found to have been completely innocent. Conversely, I'm sure there are those who really did do evil, murderous things but were found "not guilty" by the state whether due to weak/no evidence, being really good at deceit, etc. The state found GZ "not guilty," but my contention is that it's at least _remotely possible _that George really did do wrong but got away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you do not believe in the justice system.
> 
> A man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Unless you are judged guilty, you ARE innocent.
> 
> There is no doubt, unless you do not believe in the basic concept that only a jury can take away your status as an innocent.
Click to expand...


Okay, that's stretching it a bit.  A man may be found "innocent" *by a court of law*, but could very well be guilty of the crime he was accused of, but just able to convince the jury that he was not and vice versa.  That doesn't mean he is innocent, just innocent as far as the court of law is concerned.

If that was not the case we wouldn't have so many that have been released by  the courts after DNA proved their innocence, many times proving that someone that was considered innocent was actually the guilty one.


----------



## Katzndogz

Mertex said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions about Zimmerman, that he was asking for a beating reminds me of the rapist who's defense was that the women he raped was dressed in such a manner she was asking to be raped....
> 
> That was a loser as is all the Travon Martin defenses that Zimmerman was asking to be assaulted.
> 
> Do you think if the women in question had a gun and shot the rapist, the libs would be defending him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, not a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously?  I think the conservatives would be more likely to defend him, because he had a gun.
Click to expand...


No Conservatives would defend the women because SHE was the one with a gun.  The whole point of repealing self defense laws is so those women won't have guns anymore and won't be able to hurt the poor rapists who have a right to sex and a right to have fun.


----------



## Mertex

Katzndogz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, not a doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  I think the conservatives would be more likely to defend him, because he had a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Conservatives would defend the women because SHE was the one with a gun.  The whole point of repealing self defense laws is so those women won't have guns anymore and won't be able to hurt the poor rapists who have a right to sex and a right to have fun.
Click to expand...


My bad, I didn't read it through - but in that case, liberals would be the ones defending the woman, because liberals are always trying to protect women's rights, and women have the right to wear sexy clothes without some jerk thinking it's an invitation for him to party with her, and she would definitely have the right to plug him if he "raped" her.  Conservatives would be blaming her for having worn sexy outfit.
Contrary to conservative belief, many libs have guns, they are just more responsible with them.


----------



## thanatos144

Pheonixops said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was found not guilty.
> 
> Whether he is innocent or not well never know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know its hard for you to process but a not guilty verdict in a self defense trial means innocent.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think tat O.J. was "innocent"?
Click to expand...


Yes


----------



## dilloduck

Mertex said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  I think the conservatives would be more likely to defend him, because he had a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Conservatives would defend the women because SHE was the one with a gun.  The whole point of repealing self defense laws is so those women won't have guns anymore and won't be able to hurt the poor rapists who have a right to sex and a right to have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad, I didn't read it through - but in that case, liberals would be the ones defending the woman, because liberals are always trying to protect women's rights, and women have the right to wear sexy clothes without some jerk thinking it's an invitation for him to party with her, and she would definitely have the right to plug him if he "raped" her.  Conservatives would be blaming her for having worn sexy outfit.
> Contrary to conservative belief, many libs have guns, they are just more responsible with them.
Click to expand...


Where did you get the idea that conservatives think that liberals don't have guns and where is you data to prove that liberals use them more responsibly ? You do understand that Zimmerman is a liberal right?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

thanatos144 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know its hard for you to process but a not guilty verdict in a self defense trial means innocent.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think tat O.J. was "innocent"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


OJ is and was guilty of double murder;  far from innocent.

"Acquitted" is not actually a synonym of "innocent."


----------



## Agit8r

It's about law and order:

"One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause.  By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause.  He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."
-- *Edmund Burke*; from _Reflections on the Revolution in France_ (1790)

Whatever Zimmerman's motivations were--whether his unfounded prejudices were racial or otherwise--he clearly made a few errors in judgement that day.  That neither he nor the people who call him a hero are able to realize this is a shame.


----------



## numan

'

His errors of judgment were wowsers, weren't they?

But one has come to expect that in those brought up in the modern day horrors of American "culture."

.


----------



## Rozman

Sallow said:


> The Zimmerman verdict represents a devolution of the justice system and a return to the notion that "lynching" is okay. This might even become the lynchpin of a second civil rights movement



Or maybe the jury listened to the testimony,weighed whatever evidence was presented
was instructed by the Judge and returned a verdict.

Now the left doesn't like the verdict and will try to create a race war..


----------



## Rozman

If Zimmerman is tried again for this as a Civil Rights issue the message will be sent
that the trial was a show trial and that justice that they said they were seeking had nothing to do with it
and the only thing they would be happy with was revenge.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the second civil rights movement to secure the rights of black people license to commit crimes on non black people, quite possibly we have entered into the second era of civil rights.


----------



## PMZ

I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with. 

It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO. 

TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's. 

I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.


----------



## PMZ

Looking in hindsight, always risky, if the prosecution had tried GZ for manslaughter, it would have been nearly impossible for the defense to explain away "they always get away with it".

"They" when all G knew was that T was black, "it" which would have given away George's frame of mind for bringing a gun to a peaceful scene.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.



Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Looking in hindsight, always risky, if the prosecution had tried GZ for manslaughter, it would have been nearly impossible for the defense to explain away "they always get away with it".
> 
> "They" when all G knew was that T was black, "it" which would have given away George's frame of mind for bringing a gun to a peaceful scene.



They did charge him with manslaughter...a charge which the jury found him not guilty of for the same reasons that they found him not guilty of Murder II.  George Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin for following him.  Zimmerman used his weapon to shoot someone who was straddling him and raining blows down at his head.  It's one of the most clear cut cases of self defense I've ever seen.

In hindsight, the original Prosecutor, who declined to bring charges against Zimmerman because he felt the case was so weak, was proven to be 100% correct in that assessment.
If Angela Cory had taken her case to a Grand Jury it's almost certain that THEY would declined to find probable cause to take the case to trial as well...something Cory obviously KNEW when she sidestepped taking it to a Grand Jury and took it to a Judge instead...lying about the circumstances of the case to get an arrest warrant issued for Zimmerman.  You're going to see the Special Prosecutor Cory get punished for how she conducted this case.  They won't be able to do it while she is still in office but those charges will be pending.


----------



## PMZ

Without GZ's decision to pack for no reason except for prejudice,  there is no crime here. He made a fatal error.  He's free due to prosecutorial misjudgement,  not his innocence.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Without GZ's decision to pack for no reason except for prejudice,  there is no crime here. He made a fatal error.  He's free due to prosecutorial misjudgement,  not his innocence.



There was no crime by Zimmerman

How many times do I need to ask this

YOU are having your head bashed onto a concrete sidewalk, you have two options:

1. You allow the attack to continue with the possibility the attack kills you

Or

2. You shoot the attacker to stop your head from being pounded into the concrete

Which option do you take?

Reality might just set in when you honestly answer the question

That might be too much to ask, but give it the old college try


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Without GZ's decision to pack for no reason except for prejudice,  there is no crime here. He made a fatal error.  He's free due to prosecutorial misjudgement,  not his innocence.



The reason that George Zimmerman was "packing" was because of problems with a pit bull in the neighborhood.  If he hadn't had his weapon there is the possibility that it would have been HIM that was dead on the ground that night or severely injured.

He's free because the Prosecution didn't have a case to try him with in the first place.  You'd grasp that fact if you weren't so biased in your view of what happened.


----------



## CultureCitizen

The Rabbi said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you place all the blame on Zimmerman. Typical Lib. If Martin had simply gone home and not assaulted Zimmerman, he'd be alive. Had Martin not done things that got him suspended from school, he would not have been in Sanford.
> 
> But it's Zim's fault for carrying a firearm. OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for carying it : for playing the vigilante without propper trainning , and getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person. Hell , the police was just 1 minute away .
> 
> And yes ... what an evil lot we liberls are : social service in exchange for his imprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not "play the vigilante".  That is another lie you should have been schooled on.  He did not "get into a fist fight."  He was sucker punched by Trayvon. I suppose next you'll say if Zimmerman had just moved his jaw out of the way of Trayvon's fist none of this would have happened.
> Neg for gross stupidity and ignorance.
Click to expand...


Ok pal , in order to avoid any misunderstanding, when I say "getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person." I am refering to this :

"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[16] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[77] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door."

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it was quite idiotic from him getting out of his car and getting into a fist fight with Trayvon Martin lacking any propper training on how to perform an arrest.


----------



## BobPlumb

The reason that a person has a CWP is to legally be able to carry a gun.  The reason to carry a gun is to be able to shoot the guy that violently attacks you.


----------



## Pogo

Good thoughtful OP.  I'll leave it unquoted in the interest of space but good work.

I'm still stupefied, though not unexpectedly, that so much hot air is expended on a case like this and that millions of armchair detectives see fit to declare "this guy's guilty of this, that guy's innocent of that" in an incident none of us witnessed between two guys none of us knows in a place none of us has ever been.  We seriously seriously need to get the fuck over ourselves.

I don't see this whole fake-news story as stirred up by any political "side"; I see it as stirred up by mass media, because it involves guns and race and to the extent they can milk it, legal mystery.  And that's what sells papers.  If only there had been a sex scandal involved, they'd need a bib for their collective drooling.

Ultimately all of this says far less about racial relations or Stand Your Ground or the legal system than it says about mass media and the power it has to distract the populace with emotional news candy while something that's actually significant goes on ignored.


----------



## Oldstyle

CultureCitizen said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for carying it : for playing the vigilante without propper trainning , and getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person. Hell , the police was just 1 minute away .
> 
> And yes ... what an evil lot we liberls are : social service in exchange for his imprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not "play the vigilante".  That is another lie you should have been schooled on.  He did not "get into a fist fight."  He was sucker punched by Trayvon. I suppose next you'll say if Zimmerman had just moved his jaw out of the way of Trayvon's fist none of this would have happened.
> Neg for gross stupidity and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok pal , in order to avoid any misunderstanding, when I say "getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person." I am refering to this :
> 
> "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[16] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[77] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door."
> 
> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I think it was quite idiotic from him getting out of his car and getting into a fist fight with Trayvon Martin lacking any propper training on how to perform an arrest.
Click to expand...


You just gave Zimmerman's reason for getting out of his SUV.  He was asked by the dispatcher "Which way is he running?" and in order to answer that question Zimmerman gets out of his SUV and goes to the T area in an attempt to keep Martin in sight.  You *assume* that means that Zimmerman intends to confront Martin and try and arrest him but that makes no sense given Zimmerman's history.  He's NEVER attempted to arrest someone before in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  He's NEVER confronted someone in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  All he's doing at that point is trying to keep the suspect in view after he loses sight of Trayvon Martin when he runs.  He's called the Police and knows they are in route to the complex.  THEY would be the one's to confront Martin.

The REASON that there is a fist fight is that Trayvon Martin confronts George Zimmerman on Zimmerman's way BACK to his SUV and sucker punches him in the face.  Given George Zimmerman's history and his general demeanor I think it's safe to say that if he SAW Trayvon Martin coming towards him that he would have retreated.  George Zimmerman is NOT a violent, confrontational person.  I'm sorry, he's just not.  He's pretty much a wuss.  That fight takes place because Trayvon makes it take place.  HE leaves the safety of the condo he was staying at and walks BACK to confront someone following him in the pitch dark between those buildings.  That isn't the act of a "victim" that is the act of an aggressor.


----------



## earlycuyler

Oldstyle said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did not "play the vigilante".  That is another lie you should have been schooled on.  He did not "get into a fist fight."  He was sucker punched by Trayvon. I suppose next you'll say if Zimmerman had just moved his jaw out of the way of Trayvon's fist none of this would have happened.
> Neg for gross stupidity and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok pal , in order to avoid any misunderstanding, when I say "getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person." I am refering to this :
> 
> "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[16] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[77] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door."
> 
> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I think it was quite idiotic from him getting out of his car and getting into a fist fight with Trayvon Martin lacking any propper training on how to perform an arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just gave Zimmerman's reason for getting out of his SUV.  He was asked by the dispatcher "Which way is he running?" and in order to answer that question Zimmerman gets out of his SUV and goes to the T area in an attempt to keep Martin in sight.  You *assume* that means that Zimmerman intends to confront Martin and try and arrest him but that makes no sense given Zimmerman's history.  He's NEVER attempted to arrest someone before in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  He's NEVER confronted someone in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  All he's doing at that point is trying to keep the suspect in view after he loses sight of Trayvon Martin when he runs.  He's called the Police and knows they are in route to the complex.  THEY would be the one's to confront Martin.
> 
> The REASON that there is a fist fight is that Trayvon Martin confronts George Zimmerman on Zimmerman's way BACK to his SUV and sucker punches him in the face.  Given George Zimmerman's history and his general demeanor I think it's safe to say that if he SAW Trayvon Martin coming towards him that he would have retreated.  George Zimmerman is NOT a violent, confrontational person.  I'm sorry, he's just not.  He's pretty much a wuss.  That fight takes place because Trayvon makes it take place.  HE leaves the safety of the condo he was staying at and walks BACK to confront someone following him in the pitch dark between those buildings.  That isn't the act of a "victim" that is the act of an aggressor.
Click to expand...

 

All this nonsense can be applied to Zimmerman, who by carrying a fire arm put him in violation of the regs of his neighborhood watch program, not to mention the fact that he continued to follow martin. Zimmerman did not walk because he was innocent. He walked because the DA was incompetent. This is why you guys keep going bact to " thug in training".


----------



## PMZ

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
Click to expand...


Lack of evidence. In FL they have a stand your ground law to protect those who are armed from prosecution. It, apparently, doesn't apply to those who are unarmed.


----------



## PMZ

Oldstyle said:


> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did not "play the vigilante".  That is another lie you should have been schooled on.  He did not "get into a fist fight."  He was sucker punched by Trayvon. I suppose next you'll say if Zimmerman had just moved his jaw out of the way of Trayvon's fist none of this would have happened.
> Neg for gross stupidity and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok pal , in order to avoid any misunderstanding, when I say "getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person." I am refering to this :
> 
> "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[16] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[77] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door."
> 
> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I think it was quite idiotic from him getting out of his car and getting into a fist fight with Trayvon Martin lacking any propper training on how to perform an arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just gave Zimmerman's reason for getting out of his SUV.  He was asked by the dispatcher "Which way is he running?" and in order to answer that question Zimmerman gets out of his SUV and goes to the T area in an attempt to keep Martin in sight.  You *assume* that means that Zimmerman intends to confront Martin and try and arrest him but that makes no sense given Zimmerman's history.  He's NEVER attempted to arrest someone before in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  He's NEVER confronted someone in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  All he's doing at that point is trying to keep the suspect in view after he loses sight of Trayvon Martin when he runs.  He's called the Police and knows they are in route to the complex.  THEY would be the one's to confront Martin.
> 
> The REASON that there is a fist fight is that Trayvon Martin confronts George Zimmerman on Zimmerman's way BACK to his SUV and sucker punches him in the face.  Given George Zimmerman's history and his general demeanor I think it's safe to say that if he SAW Trayvon Martin coming towards him that he would have retreated.  George Zimmerman is NOT a violent, confrontational person.  I'm sorry, he's just not.  He's pretty much a wuss.  That fight takes place because Trayvon makes it take place.  HE leaves the safety of the condo he was staying at and walks BACK to confront someone following him in the pitch dark between those buildings.  That isn't the act of a "victim" that is the act of an aggressor.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you were there.


----------



## PaulS1950

According to the evidence accepted at the trial, Zimmerman was returning to his car and had been for nearly 75 yards when he was attacked and beaten. That is when he used the gun he carries for self defense. In no way was he trying to arrest Martin. The trial focused on the illegality of the incidence of force. That is when Zimmerman was attacked and not before. There were no laws broken until that attack. In that incident the only lawbreaker was Martin. Zimmerman legally used the gun he legally carried to defend himself against an illegal, felonious, attack by Martin. 

Zimmerman was found not guilty. End of story. Quit using the news stories in an attempt to convict an innocent man. The news lied and they are being sued for doing so.

Mistakes were made that day but it has no bearing on the attack by Martin on Zimmerman and the results that occurred. If Zimmerman had left his gun at home he would, at best be in the hospital, and at worst he would be dead. Martin would have been on trial for at least the felony of assault and battery and at worst aggravated murder. Many different possibilities existed but when you take the evidence that was accepted at the trial there is only one verdict possible in this case, NOT GUILTY.


----------



## Pogo

PMZ said:


> It sounds like you were there.



Yeah, we all were.  We know everything that went down, even better than those who were there, thanks to our media that never sleeps and would never _ever _exaggerate or fabricate or speculate or prevaricate or masturbate just to pump their own ratings so we can totally trust them.

Yeah. that's the ticket...


----------



## justoffal

This is an outstanding answer...

This is so well worded and so full of real value that it should be printed and distributed en masse to quell the storm of racial tension that is currently brewing at the behest and glee of the left wing Anarchy squads.

Obama should have his mouth removed Matrix style by Agent smith for shitting all over the bully pulpit with words designed to re-ignite a civil war in this nation.

The sooner that moron is out of DC the better for the nation.

JO


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> According to the evidence accepted at the trial, Zimmerman was returning to his car and had been for nearly 75 yards when he was attacked and beaten. That is when he used the gun he carries for self defense. In no way was he trying to arrest Martin. The trial focused on the illegality of the incidence of force. That is when Zimmerman was attacked and not before. There were no laws broken until that attack. In that incident the only lawbreaker was Martin. Zimmerman legally used the gun he legally carried to defend himself against an illegal, felonious, attack by Martin.
> 
> Zimmerman was found not guilty. End of story. Quit using the news stories in an attempt to convict an innocent man. The news lied and they are being sued for doing so.
> 
> Mistakes were made that day but it has no bearing on the attack by Martin on Zimmerman and the results that occurred. If Zimmerman had left his gun at home he would, at best be in the hospital, and at worst he would be dead. Martin would have been on trial for at least the felony of assault and battery and at worst aggravated murder. Many different possibilities existed but when you take the evidence that was accepted at the trial there is only one verdict possible in this case, NOT GUILTY.



There is no way to know what evidence was accepted by the jury. There is no way to know the degree to which both prosecution and defense effectively presented the evidence. All that can be said for sure was the verdict against the prosecutions case. I personally am of the opinion that if the prosecution had built their case around manslaughter they would have gotten a conviction. Why? The FL stand your ground murder law makes convictions for unwitnessed violent deaths almost impossible to achieve. 

I don't think that this was about race. It was about bad law.


----------



## thanatos144

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of evidence. In FL they have a stand your ground law to protect those who are armed from prosecution. It, apparently, doesn't apply to those who are unarmed.
Click to expand...


Stand your ground had nothing to do with this case. Educate yourself


----------



## PMZ

justoffal said:


> This is an outstanding answer...
> 
> This is so well worded and so full of real value that it should be printed and distributed en masse to quell the storm of racial tension that is currently brewing at the behest and glee of the left wing Anarchy squads.
> 
> Obama should have his mouth removed Matrix style by Agent smith for shitting all over the bully pulpit with words designed to re-ignite a civil war in this nation.
> 
> The sooner that moron is out of DC the better for the nation.
> 
> JO



Just think of how much better off we'd be with John McCain and Sarah Palin running the country. Perhaps even Congress would have returned to work.


----------



## justoffal

You are spot on and totally accurate about that.

Obama actually taught side by side with Alinsky at one point during his life....  The whole idea is to prove that freedoms...espeically of speech and armament don't work and that only an all powerful government can protect the populous from itself.

This is total BS of course  however micreants like Obama ( who was most likely sexually abused growing up ) and Alinsky ( a well known pedophile who may also have had growing up issues ) are drawn to that kind of control because it gives them a sense of security that they never had  and provides a vent for their bitter designs in the form of social vengeance....then of course they want  to force it on everyone else.

JO


----------



## Boss

*Aftermath*

I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing. 

Wake, our justice system was established on the *principle* (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter. 

What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.


----------



## PMZ

thanatos144 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of evidence. In FL they have a stand your ground law to protect those who are armed from prosecution. It, apparently, doesn't apply to those who are unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stand your ground had nothing to do with this case. Educate yourself
Click to expand...


"The jury instructionsand a reason for their verdict: Just because Zimmerman's defense team didn't bring up Stand Your Ground in the trial (more on that below), that doesn't mean the law was irrelevant to the jury's decision. To the contrary, Judge Debra Nelson made clear in the jury instructions (PDF) that they should consider the law:"

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

"And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.""


----------



## PaulS1950

The trial was televised. The evidence was shown. A lot of entered evidence was not allowed (mostly the evidence provided by the defense - it was not entered as evidence because it was about Martin and not the case at hand) The reason that the prosecution didn't present a better case was because they didn't have a case to begin with. 

If you accept the evidence provided, you would come up with the same verdict that the jury did - a jury that admitted three wanted to convict for second degree murder and two that wanted to convict for manslaughter before they heard the evidence. They all changed their minds because of the evidence presented and accepted by the court.

Stop using the news to try to argue with a jury that was given the evidence and decided that Zimmerman was not guilty of any crime in this case.


----------



## PMZ

Boss said:


> *Aftermath*
> 
> I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.
> 
> Wake, our justice system was established on the *principle* (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.
> 
> What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.



"What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."

True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night. 

"Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"

There is zero evidence to support this.


----------



## thanatos144

PMZ said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Aftermath*
> 
> I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.
> 
> Wake, our justice system was established on the *principle* (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.
> 
> What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."
> 
> True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.
> 
> "Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"
> 
> There is zero evidence to support this.
Click to expand...


Chicago is all the evidence you need to prove gun control doesn't work


----------



## PMZ

Chicago is middle of the road for American cities in violent crime. 

FL is well known as a very difficult state in which to get unwitnessed murder convictions.  Stand your ground in both law and culture is the reason. It's a gun nut nirvana. 

The judge realized that and instructed the jury to consider manslaughter after the prosecution had attempted the nearly impossible. Good for her but too late. 

What is there to be learned from this?  Policing should be done by trained police.


----------



## twopockets

as a society we need to focus more on conflict resolution,,there are right and wrong responses no matter what the conflict is and violence should always be the LAST LAST LAST  resort.


----------



## PaulS1950

There is a very simple way to prevent the death in this case. Martin should not have committed the crime of attacking a man going to his car. If Martin had not committed assault and battery he would not be dead.

It is as simple as that. Martin had no legal reason to attack Zimmerman. 
Once Zimmerman was attacked and felt that his life was in danger he had the legal right to use deadly force to end the attack.

If you don't want your kids to end up dead teach them to respect the laws and to obey them.


----------



## twopockets

Also as a society we need to take personal responsibility for our character because lack of good character causes mistrust and suspicion,,,it isn't necessarily a 'race thing'. I don't trust anyone who has poor character no matter what the color of their skin...


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> There is a very simple way to prevent the death in this case. Martin should not have committed the crime of attacking a man going to his car. If Martin had not committed assault and battery he would not be dead.
> 
> It is as simple as that. Martin had no legal reason to attack Zimmerman.
> Once Zimmerman was attacked and felt that his life was in danger he had the legal right to use deadly force to end the attack.
> 
> If you don't want your kids to end up dead teach them to respect the laws and to obey them.



Zimmerman had no reason to stalk Martin with a gun. The confrontation was not random. I've injured myself worse than Zimmerman was pounding nails. 

If you think that all who die of gun violence are those who disrespect or disobey the law, you have a rude awakening coming.


----------



## PaulS1950

You cannot trust someone you don't know. 
Trust is not an issue but staying on the right side of the law is.
If you break the law you should be punished.
If you defend yourself from one breaking the law you should not.

This issue has nothing to do with whether someone seems to be a good person or not and even mean spirited bigots can defend themselves when their life or health is threatened.


----------



## PMZ

twopockets said:


> Also as a society we need to take personal responsibility for our character because lack of good character causes mistrust and suspicion,,,it isn't necessarily a 'race thing'. I don't trust anyone who has poor character no matter what the color of their skin...



Many people mistake being armed with having character. It's a brand thing that the NRA has been selling for years to keep the arms industry so profitable. People who haven't fallen under the spell of the NRA see it oppositely. It's more likely that those of dysfunctional character try to compensate by blaming others for their fear.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Aftermath*
> 
> I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.
> 
> Wake, our justice system was established on the *principle* (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.
> 
> What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."
> 
> True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.
> 
> "Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"
> 
> There is zero evidence to support this.
Click to expand...


There was NO murder that night. This is why an honest discussion is nearly impossible. 

Fairy tales rule!


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> You cannot trust someone you don't know.
> Trust is not an issue but staying on the right side of the law is.
> If you break the law you should be punished.
> If you defend yourself from one breaking the law you should not.
> 
> This issue has nothing to do with whether someone seems to be a good person or not and even mean spirited bigots can defend themselves when their life or health is threatened.



People who make laws spend a great deal of time making sure that the punishment fits the crime. Many people believe that the inherent uncertainty in man made judgements makes death always inappropriate for any crime. 

All of that is way beyond George Zimmerman's moral judgement. I believe that he realizes that now and is doomed to a very unhappy future. It's arguable who paid the biggest price between he and his victim. In the same way it's arguable for O. J. Simpson and Casey Anthony.


----------



## PaulS1950

PMZ said:


> Zimmerman had no reason to stalk Martin with a gun. The confrontation was not random. I've injured myself worse than Zimmerman was pounding nails.
> 
> If you think that all who die of gun violence are those who disrespect or disobey the law, you have a rude awakening coming.



Zimmerman was not even following Martin when the attack happened. Zimmerman was not "stalking" anyone and the gun was concealed and holstered and completely legal under the law. Zimmerman did not brandish the gun or use it to threaten Martin. 

Martin attacked Zimmerman which was a felony. At that point Martin became a criminal by the definition of the law. Zimmerman, forced on his back and being beaten had no other recourse than to use his gun to defend himself. 

People do get attacked by criminals with guns and are killed but this case is in no way similar to those cases. Martin committed a crime in attacking Zimmerman and lost his life for doing so.

1.5 to 3 million times a year people use guns to legally defend themselves from criminals and most of the times they are confronted before a shot has to be fired and they run. Martin thought he was going to beat this man to show him not to mess with him - all in his mind - and this man had a way to defend his life. Martin died in the act of committing a felony. Martin was "the bad guy" in this case and Zimmerman was the victim.

That was the decision of the trial as shown by the verdict.


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Aftermath*
> 
> I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.
> 
> Wake, our justice system was established on the *principle* (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.
> 
> What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."
> 
> True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.
> 
> "Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"
> 
> There is zero evidence to support this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was NO murder that night. This is why an honest discussion is nearly impossible.
> 
> Fairy tales rule!
Click to expand...


There was an innocent life lost.


----------



## PaulS1950

NO innocent life was lost. Martin committed a felony when he attacked Zimmerman. He died while in the act of committing that felony.


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman had no reason to stalk Martin with a gun. The confrontation was not random. I've injured myself worse than Zimmerman was pounding nails.
> 
> If you think that all who die of gun violence are those who disrespect or disobey the law, you have a rude awakening coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was not even following Martin when the attack happened. Zimmerman was not "stalking" anyone and the gun was concealed and holstered and completely legal under the law. Zimmerman did not brandish the gun or use it to threaten Martin.
> 
> Martin attacked Zimmerman which was a felony. At that point Martin became a criminal by the definition of the law. Zimmerman, forced on his back and being beaten had no other recourse than to use his gun to defend himself.
> 
> People do get attacked by criminals with guns and are killed but this case is in no way similar to those cases. Martin committed a crime in attacking Zimmerman and lost his life for doing so.
> 
> 1.5 to 3 million times a year people use guns to legally defend themselves from criminals and most of the times they are confronted before a shot has to be fired and they run. Martin thought he was going to beat this man to show him not to mess with him - all in his mind - and this man had a way to defend his life. Martin died in the act of committing a felony. Martin was "the bad guy" in this case and Zimmerman was the victim.
> 
> That was the decision of the trial as shown by the verdict.
Click to expand...


So, your assumption was that it was a random attack. You are the only person that I know who sees it that way.


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> NO innocent life was lost. Martin committed a felony when he attacked Zimmerman. He died while in the act of committing that felony.



One of the principles that my country was founded on is innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial and by a jury of your peers. 

That's not something that I'm willing to give up to vigilantes.


----------



## PaulS1950

Random or not it was an illegal act. Zimmerman showed no malice and no threatening behavior. He was in the process of leaving the scene when he was attacked, criminally, by Martin. The evidence in the trial supported Zimmerman's account, Eye-witness testimony supported Zimmerman's account and the prosecution's witnesses, for the most part supported Zimmerman's account. There was no evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal and there is direct and eye-witness evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman without legal cause. 

The jury agreed and found Zimmerman guilt free of any wrong doing.


----------



## PaulS1950

PMZ said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO innocent life was lost. Martin committed a felony when he attacked Zimmerman. He died while in the act of committing that felony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the principles that my country was founded on is innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial and by a jury of your peers.
> 
> That's not something that I'm willing to give up to vigilantes.
Click to expand...


So, you are saying that if you are brutally attacked and you feel your life is in danger you will just die without making every effort to preserve your own life?

I doubt that unless you are Mennonite. If someone is a clear and present danger to you or your loved ones I believe that you have at least the same right to defend yourself as wild animals. 

By the way, why are not extending the "innocent until proven guilty" to Zimmerman? It must not be an important belief for you in this case. He was presumed guilty by the press but not by the law and was adjudicated not guilty so why do you have such a hard time accepting the very foundation you say you stand for?

By the way - self defense was a founding precept in the founding of your country. That is exactly why there is a second amendment.


----------



## PMZ

The 2ond Ammendment has to do with defending the country back in days before we could afford a standing military.  You must be reporting the gospel according to the NRA.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO innocent life was lost. Martin committed a felony when he attacked Zimmerman. He died while in the act of committing that felony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One of the principles that my country was founded on is innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial and by a jury of your peers*.
> 
> That's not something that I'm willing to give up to vigilantes.
Click to expand...


that is exactly what have happened.

yet you still are unhappy.


----------



## PMZ

I said that I believe that GZ is innocent of murder II as is TM innocent of any crime.


----------



## numan

'
I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:

*A place called Sanford*

*The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*

It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.

I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.

It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.

.


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> '
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> .



Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan

Since your brilliant, let me ask you this

Your head is being bashed against a concrete sidewalk

Do you:

A. Allow the assault to continue with the possibility of death

Or

B. shoot the attacker to stop the beating?

It's a multiple choice test, so no doubt you can answer. No one else has been able. 

Be a leader


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."
> 
> True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.
> 
> "Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"
> 
> There is zero evidence to support this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was NO murder that night. This is why an honest discussion is nearly impossible.
> 
> Fairy tales rule!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was an innocent life lost.
Click to expand...


No there wasn't. Would you like to answer a simple question that proves it?


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan
> 
> Since your brilliant, let me ask you this
> 
> Your head is being bashed against a concrete sidewalk
> 
> Do you:
> 
> A. Allow the assault to continue with the possibility of death
> 
> Or
> 
> B. shoot the attacker to stop the beating?
> 
> It's a multiple choice test, so no doubt you can answer. No one else has been able.
> 
> Be a leader
Click to expand...


Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?


----------



## PMZ

George Z taught those who are not against taking a life two things.  Do it in central FL and eliminate all other eyewitnesses.  

If you follow those simple rules,  whatever you claim will be seen as a good reason to carry rather than a crime.  So simple and foolproof. 

FL now is what the NRA would like the entire country to be like.  The good old days where majority not only rules but does so with no rules.


----------



## Vox

Pogo said:


> Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?



the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force. 
It's the law.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
> It's the law.
Click to expand...


No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"

So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan
> 
> Since your brilliant, let me ask you this
> 
> Your head is being bashed against a concrete sidewalk
> 
> Do you:
> 
> A. Allow the assault to continue with the possibility of death
> 
> Or
> 
> B. shoot the attacker to stop the beating?
> 
> It's a multiple choice test, so no doubt you can answer. No one else has been able.
> 
> Be a leader
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?
Click to expand...


Another no answer

It's a simple A. Or B. 

What difference does it make, please justify slamming someone's head against a concrete sidewalk.  

This should be good


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
> It's the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"
> 
> So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.
Click to expand...


Yes it does and as soon as you answer the original question you may actually have the answer to yours

No deep thought is actually required.


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan
> 
> Since your brilliant, let me ask you this
> 
> Your head is being bashed against a concrete sidewalk
> 
> Do you:
> 
> A. Allow the assault to continue with the possibility of death
> 
> Or
> 
> B. shoot the attacker to stop the beating?
> 
> It's a multiple choice test, so no doubt you can answer. No one else has been able.
> 
> Be a leader
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another no answer
> 
> It's a simple A. Or B.
> 
> What difference does it make, please justify slamming someone's head against a concrete sidewalk.
> 
> This should be good
Click to expand...


No, it isn't a simple A or B.  Events don't happen in a vacuum.
Speaking of vacuum, trying to explain the world in terms of "simple A or B" ... sucks.


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
> It's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"
> 
> So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does and as soon as you answer the original question you may actually have the answer to yours
> 
> No deep thought is actually required.
Click to expand...


It wasn't asked of me.  All I'm here for is to note the question as phrased is invalid.
Consider me like a referee


----------



## PMZ

What's the evidence that it even happened? 

A small cut on GZ's head?

If I killed someone every time my kids came home with injuries like that there'd be quite a pile of bodies somewhere.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> What's the evidence that it even happened?
> 
> A small cut on GZ's head?



ask the jury


----------



## Vox

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
> It's the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"
> 
> So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.
Click to expand...


the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. 
That's why Z was acquitted.


----------



## PMZ

TM wasn't on trial. Nobody spoke for what he did or didn't do. Thats the beauty of eliminating witnesses.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> TM wasn't on trial. Nobody spoke for what he did or didn't do. Thats the beauty of eliminating witnesses.



it doesn't matter.

there was an eye-witness T was beating up Z and was slamming his head to the ground.


----------



## PMZ

I guess that I value life more than you do. When I grew up fights were common,  murders few. Then the NRA came up with their brand and that changed.  Welcome to conservative Amerika.


----------



## PMZ

Your description of what the witness saw,  and his description of what he saw are quite different.  Must be in your imagination you had a better vantage point.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> I guess that I value life more than you do. When I grew up fights were common,  murders few. Then the NRA came up with their brand and that changed.  Welcome to conservative Amerika.



our VIEWS are irrelevant.

The law isn't.

The rules of street fight ethics do not equate with the law - and that is the common mistake, you, Trayvon and others defending him make.

Learn the LAW.

and teach the kids that street fight ethics and criminal laws DIFFER. A lot.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
> It's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"
> 
> So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
> That's why Z was acquitted.
Click to expand...


No, actually it isn't.  We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

_Within _the Zimmerman trial however, I _*guarantee *_you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that.  If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense.  Because "things just happen in a vacuum".  That's bullshit.


----------



## PMZ

The law must depend on trials and juries.  Consider how many murder convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence.  If you think that the system is perfect you're dreaming.  TM paid the ultimate price for GZ's errors and the flawed FL law and culture let him get away with it.

Shit happens.  And usually rolls down hill. If it ever rolled uphill people like you would be screaming.


----------



## Vox

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"
> 
> So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
> That's why Z was acquitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually it isn't.  We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.
> 
> _Within _the Zimmerman trial however, I _*guarantee *_you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that.  If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense.  Because "things just happen in a vacuum".  That's bullshit.
Click to expand...


I am talking the trial and the law applied.
The reason for the fight and who started it was irrelevant for the trial, the jury and the judge.

In the reality of street fight ethics that might differ a lot.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> The law must depend on trials and juries.  Consider how many murder convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence.  If you think that the system is perfect you're dreaming.  TM paid the ultimate price for GZ's errors and the flawed FL law and culture let him get away with it.
> 
> Shit happens.  And usually rolls down hill. If it ever rolled uphill people like you would be screaming.



you are mixing apples and oranges.

DNA here was not a relevant evidence as the identity of both of the men was known.

I do not think the system is perfect.

I think it is very flawed, but the angle it is flawed from my perspective never is addressed neither by you, nor other Trayvon's  defenders.

The main reason the system is extremely flawed  is the existence of mandatory sentencing.

It makes the judge almost not needed and the decision to be made ONLY as guilty-not guilty.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
> That's why Z was acquitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it isn't.  We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.
> 
> _Within _the Zimmerman trial however, I _*guarantee *_you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that.  If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense.  Because "things just happen in a vacuum".  That's bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am talking the trial and the law applied.
> The reason for the fight and who started it was irrelevant for the trial, the jury and the judge.
> 
> In the reality of street fight ethics that might differ a lot.
Click to expand...


Having the reason spelled out and then deciding the reason is irrelevant, is a completely different thing from refusing to stipulate what the background even is in your own hypothetical scenario.


----------



## Vox

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it isn't.  We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.
> 
> _Within _the Zimmerman trial however, I _*guarantee *_you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that.  If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense.  Because "things just happen in a vacuum".  That's bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking the trial and the law applied.
> The reason for the fight and who started it was irrelevant for the trial, the jury and the judge.
> 
> In the reality of street fight ethics that might differ a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the reason spelled out and then deciding the reason is irrelevant, is a completely different thing from refusing to stipulate what the background even is in your own hypothetical scenario.
Click to expand...


I did not spell out the reason.

I think that the situation could have been totally different if Z would call or approach T with a polite sentence "you seem lost here, can I help you, I am so an so and am a neighborhood watch here". I highly suspect that even if T was a highly-flammable for a fight material  he would not get into a fight after this. He would probably mumble something like "I'm fine, going home to so and so".

But Z was not taught rules of appropriate conduct ( politeness) and T was sure he can teach Z a lesson and the rest we know.


----------



## PMZ

The law makers have the responsibility to establish consequences for not abiding by any law.  The judge and jury can only decide if the evidence of breaking the law is compelling beyond reasonable doubt.  Thats all this jury decided.  That it was possible that GZ's story was correct.  No evidence made it certainly incorrect.  

Our system is to avoid convicting the innocent even at the certainty of letting some guilty off free.


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"
> 
> So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
> That's why Z was acquitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually it isn't.  We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.
> 
> _Within _the Zimmerman trial however, I _*guarantee *_you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that.  If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense.  Because "things just happen in a vacuum".  That's bullshit.
Click to expand...


Typical, don't answer the question because YOU KNOW what your answer would be and show what a hypocrite you are.

Hypothetical or not, you know what the answer would be. Guess the Jury did the right thing didn't they?

I am still looking for some kind of justification for one man slamming another mans head into a concrete sidewalk.

That my friend, is not a hypothetical, that was BROUGHT UP BY YOU.

Go ahead, show us your superior thought process. So far I am unimpressed.


----------



## Pogo

Pop23 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
> That's why Z was acquitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it isn't.  We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.
> 
> _Within _the Zimmerman trial however, I _*guarantee *_you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that.  If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense.  Because "things just happen in a vacuum".  That's bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical, don't answer the question because YOU KNOW what your answer would be and show what a hypocrite you are.
> 
> Hypothetical or not, you know what the answer would be. Guess the Jury did the right thing didn't they?
> 
> I am still looking for some kind of justification for one man slamming another mans head into a concrete sidewalk.
> 
> That my friend, is not a hypothetical, that was BROUGHT UP BY YOU.
> 
> Go ahead, show us your superior thought process. So far I am unimpressed.
Click to expand...


No, it was not BROUGHT UP BY ME.  I couldn't care less about this media circus and didn't follow a second of it.  I think you might wanna clean your glasses before going to all caps and embarrassing yourself.

What I did was I noted that you gave no background for your hypothetical.  The question cannot be addressed.  If your head is being beaten in because you're a Nazi guard and your prisoner just got the jump on you, then you and I would say the head beating is justified.  If you're head's being beaten in because you just tried to rob me and got the jump on you ...maybe.  If you're head's being beaten in because some clown just feel like some random violence, then no.

But you wouldn't say, so you have no question anyway.


----------



## PMZ

There is no evidence of that 
ever happening.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Chicago is middle of the road for American cities in violent crime.
> 
> FL is well known as a very difficult state in which to get unwitnessed murder convictions.  Stand your ground in both law and culture is the reason. It's a gun nut nirvana.
> 
> The judge realized that and instructed the jury to consider manslaughter after the prosecution had attempted the nearly impossible. Good for her but too late.
> 
> What is there to be learned from this?  *Policing should be done by trained police*.



Agree, but in reality they (the police) can't be everywhere when needed, and especially at the right time in some of these high crime areas where it's even worse. So the neighborhoods begin taking matters into their own hands once things get so bad, and I guess this is the result of that situation for this neighborhood as it were. 

If laws are to be thought of, and lessons are to be learned, then maybe there should be some rules and regulations set forth in concerns of security or neighborhood watches that are conducted by civilians or in concerns of the hiring of those who may not be qualified properly to handle a situation if one does arise, where as a person is hired anyway or chosen anyway because the situation seems so lost for the residents who are trying to just live peacefully in their neighborhoods because the cops and the system has since failed them.


----------



## PMZ

I agree that standards are in order.  If it were up to me,  they wouldn't be armed.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> I agree that standards are in order.  If it were up to me,  they wouldn't be armed.



He was not armed as a watcher.
He was armed as a lawful citizen with a CCP.
You can not forbid a watcher to carry if they are allowed to.
It is unconstitutional.


----------



## Pop23

Pogo said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it isn't.  We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.
> 
> _Within _the Zimmerman trial however, I _*guarantee *_you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that.  If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense.  Because "things just happen in a vacuum".  That's bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical, don't answer the question because YOU KNOW what your answer would be and show what a hypocrite you are.
> 
> Hypothetical or not, you know what the answer would be. Guess the Jury did the right thing didn't they?
> 
> I am still looking for some kind of justification for one man slamming another mans head into a concrete sidewalk.
> 
> That my friend, is not a hypothetical, that was BROUGHT UP BY YOU.
> 
> Go ahead, show us your superior thought process. So far I am unimpressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it was not BROUGHT UP BY ME.  I couldn't care less about this media circus and didn't follow a second of it.  I think you might wanna clean your glasses before going to all caps and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> What I did was I noted that you gave no background for your hypothetical.  The question cannot be addressed.  If your head is being beaten in because you're a Nazi guard and your prisoner just got the jump on you, then you and I would say the head beating is justified.  If you're head's being beaten in because you just tried to rob me and got the jump on you ...maybe.  If you're head's being beaten in because some clown just feel like some random violence, then no.
> 
> But you wouldn't say, so you have no question anyway.
Click to expand...


Obviously you know your NOT answering a question on a "nazi prisoner of war camp" thread

Your running is obvious

So now point out where in your above example Zimmermans position was

He was obviously not a nazi camp guard

There was no indication that he tried to rob Martin

That leaves number 3

Thank for your honesty

The jury acted correctly?


----------



## Oldstyle

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place?  Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
> It's the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the reason is not irrelevant.  Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress".  Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum.  I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"
> 
> So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.
Click to expand...


Your rationale for Zimmerman's "guilt" is that he "went out" carrying a concealed weapon...and *that * somehow set all these events in motion?  I'm having a hard time seeing that as a rational argument, Pogo.  Zimmerman was carrying a weapon that he had a permit for...a weapon that by all accounts he didn't draw from it's holster until well after he was attacked by Trayvon Martin and had been struck repeatedly in an attack which wasn't ending even when neighbors like Good came out of his townhouse and yelled at them to stop.  Trayvon didn't ask for help.  He continued to beat someone who's on their back and apparently helpless.  

I'll be completely honest with you...I have a concealed carry permit also and I would have pulled my weapon LONG before Zimmerman did.  I would have pulled it when he approached me out of the dark with his "You got a problem?" confrontation.  I would have pulled it...told him I had a gun and to stay back and if he continued to come at me I would have shot him BEFORE he punched me in the nose.  In your eyes and many other liberals eyes I assume that makes me an "Uber" criminal but I can live with that because my guess is that Martin would have backed off in the face of a drawn weapon, therefore saving his life.  Zimmerman's mistake was waiting so long that he ended up HAVING to shoot.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CultureCitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok pal , in order to avoid any misunderstanding, when I say "getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person." I am refering to this :
> 
> "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[16] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[77] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door."
> 
> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I think it was quite idiotic from him getting out of his car and getting into a fist fight with Trayvon Martin lacking any propper training on how to perform an arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just gave Zimmerman's reason for getting out of his SUV.  He was asked by the dispatcher "Which way is he running?" and in order to answer that question Zimmerman gets out of his SUV and goes to the T area in an attempt to keep Martin in sight.  You *assume* that means that Zimmerman intends to confront Martin and try and arrest him but that makes no sense given Zimmerman's history.  He's NEVER attempted to arrest someone before in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  He's NEVER confronted someone in any of the many calls he's made to Police.  All he's doing at that point is trying to keep the suspect in view after he loses sight of Trayvon Martin when he runs.  He's called the Police and knows they are in route to the complex.  THEY would be the one's to confront Martin.
> 
> The REASON that there is a fist fight is that Trayvon Martin confronts George Zimmerman on Zimmerman's way BACK to his SUV and sucker punches him in the face.  Given George Zimmerman's history and his general demeanor I think it's safe to say that if he SAW Trayvon Martin coming towards him that he would have retreated.  George Zimmerman is NOT a violent, confrontational person.  I'm sorry, he's just not.  He's pretty much a wuss.  That fight takes place because Trayvon makes it take place.  HE leaves the safety of the condo he was staying at and walks BACK to confront someone following him in the pitch dark between those buildings.  That isn't the act of a "victim" that is the act of an aggressor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you were there.
Click to expand...


Unlike you, I've actually paid attention to the testimony at trial.  This case should have never gone to trial in the first place because there was no crime committed that night by George Zimmerman.  If Angela Corey hadn't avoided taking it to a Grand Jury and instead lied to a judge to get charges filed, it wouldn't have.  Now Florida is out millions of dollars for a "show trial" that never should have taken place.


----------



## PMZ

Why didn't GZ do what you say you'd do? Was he looking for the ending that he got?


----------



## PMZ

There is not the slightest chance that middle of the road America would have allowed that not to go to trial. I'm not even sure a majority will settle for this verdict.


----------



## PMZ

There is no evidence at all that he had to shoot.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Why didn't GZ do what you say you'd do? Was he looking for the ending that he got?



Not being George Zimmerman I can't tell you *why* he did what he did.  I can try to make an educated guess based on what I know about Zimmerman's personality and the facts I do know about the conditions that night.

First of all, I don't see George Zimmerman as an "aggressive" person.  All of the testimony...by both Prosecution and Defense witnesses painted him as the exact opposite of that.  I believe the terms used quite often were "soft" and "meek".  When Martin appears suddenly out of the dark with his "You got a problem?" query...Zimmerman responds with "I don't have a problem with you." and then tries to get to his cell phone to call the police.

What Zimmerman SHOULD have done was yell loudly for Martin to keep back as he pulled his handgun...letting the stranger approaching him know that he was armed and considered him a threat if he came closer.

It's quite obvious that Zimmerman ISN'T well versed in street fighting.  He let's someone close on him without pulling his weapon or assuming a defensive posture.  If he hadn't been such a wuss he would have learned about what distance is safe and what is not in the ring at his gym.  If you're not throwing a punch or kick then you shouldn't allow yourself to be within a distance where your opponent CAN hit you with a punch or kick.  Zimmerman got sucker punched by someone he SAW coming at him.  That's the sign of someone who's NOT a fighter.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't GZ do what you say you'd do? Was he looking for the ending that he got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being George Zimmerman I can't tell you *why* he did what he did.  I can try to make an educated guess based on what I know about Zimmerman's personality and the facts I do know about the conditions that night.
> 
> First of all, I don't see George Zimmerman as an "aggressive" person.  All of the testimony...by both Prosecution and Defense witnesses painted him as the exact opposite of that.  I believe the terms used quite often were "soft" and "meek".  When Martin appears suddenly out of the dark with his "You got a problem?" query...Zimmerman responds with "I don't have a problem with you." and then tries to get to his cell phone to call the police.
> 
> What Zimmerman SHOULD have done was yell loudly for Martin to keep back as he pulled his handgun...letting the stranger approaching him know that he was armed and considered him a threat if he came closer.
> 
> It's quite obvious that Zimmerman ISN'T well versed in street fighting.  He let's someone close on him without pulling his weapon or assuming a defensive posture.  If he hadn't been such a wuss he would have learned about what distance is safe and what is not in the ring at his gym.  If you're not throwing a punch or kick then you shouldn't allow yourself to be within a distance where your opponent CAN hit you with a punch or kick.  Zimmerman got sucker punched by someone he SAW coming at him.  That's the sign of someone who's NOT a fighter.
Click to expand...


he seems passive


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> There is not the slightest chance that middle of the road America would have allowed that not to go to trial. I'm not even sure a majority will settle for this verdict.



The decision on whether something should go to trial is not made by majority vote.  That decision is made by the District Attorney usually and either a Grand Jury or a judge.  In the Zimmerman/Martin case the local District Attorney looked at the facts of the case and decided (rightly) that this was not a case that could be won in court because there was FAR too much reasonable doubt to prove Murder II or Manslaughter.

The Special Prosecutor purposely avoided going in front of a Grand Jury because she knew that they would most likely agree with the DA.  She instead went to a judge and left out important aspects of the case in order to get an arrest warrant served.

As for what a majority of Americans "thinks" about the verdict having any affect ON the verdict?  It won't.  That case is over.  The DOJ investigation is political theater and will result in nothing being done.  I'm sorry you don't LIKE the verdict but the jury followed the law and returned the only verdict that was possible given the evidence.


----------



## Oldstyle

jon_berzerk said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't GZ do what you say you'd do? Was he looking for the ending that he got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being George Zimmerman I can't tell you *why* he did what he did.  I can try to make an educated guess based on what I know about Zimmerman's personality and the facts I do know about the conditions that night.
> 
> First of all, I don't see George Zimmerman as an "aggressive" person.  All of the testimony...by both Prosecution and Defense witnesses painted him as the exact opposite of that.  I believe the terms used quite often were "soft" and "meek".  When Martin appears suddenly out of the dark with his "You got a problem?" query...Zimmerman responds with "I don't have a problem with you." and then tries to get to his cell phone to call the police.
> 
> What Zimmerman SHOULD have done was yell loudly for Martin to keep back as he pulled his handgun...letting the stranger approaching him know that he was armed and considered him a threat if he came closer.
> 
> It's quite obvious that Zimmerman ISN'T well versed in street fighting.  He let's someone close on him without pulling his weapon or assuming a defensive posture.  If he hadn't been such a wuss he would have learned about what distance is safe and what is not in the ring at his gym.  If you're not throwing a punch or kick then you shouldn't allow yourself to be within a distance where your opponent CAN hit you with a punch or kick.  Zimmerman got sucker punched by someone he SAW coming at him.  That's the sign of someone who's NOT a fighter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he seems passive
Click to expand...


I studied martial arts for decades, Jon...there are people that it doesn't matter how many classes they take...they will NEVER be fighters.  That's George Zimmerman in a nutshell.  He takes a class for over a year and the instructor won't even let him get in the ring because he's afraid George will get hurt?  That says more about Zimmerman than if he took no classes at all.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Oldstyle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not being George Zimmerman I can't tell you *why* he did what he did.  I can try to make an educated guess based on what I know about Zimmerman's personality and the facts I do know about the conditions that night.
> 
> First of all, I don't see George Zimmerman as an "aggressive" person.  All of the testimony...by both Prosecution and Defense witnesses painted him as the exact opposite of that.  I believe the terms used quite often were "soft" and "meek".  When Martin appears suddenly out of the dark with his "You got a problem?" query...Zimmerman responds with "I don't have a problem with you." and then tries to get to his cell phone to call the police.
> 
> What Zimmerman SHOULD have done was yell loudly for Martin to keep back as he pulled his handgun...letting the stranger approaching him know that he was armed and considered him a threat if he came closer.
> 
> It's quite obvious that Zimmerman ISN'T well versed in street fighting.  He let's someone close on him without pulling his weapon or assuming a defensive posture.  If he hadn't been such a wuss he would have learned about what distance is safe and what is not in the ring at his gym.  If you're not throwing a punch or kick then you shouldn't allow yourself to be within a distance where your opponent CAN hit you with a punch or kick.  Zimmerman got sucker punched by someone he SAW coming at him.  That's the sign of someone who's NOT a fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he seems passive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I studied martial arts for decades, Jon...there are people that it doesn't matter how many classes they take...they will NEVER be fighters.  That's George Zimmerman in a nutshell.  He takes a class for over a year and the instructor won't even let him get in the ring because he's afraid George will get hurt?  That says more about Zimmerman than if he took no classes at all.
Click to expand...


from the get go George reminded me of a guy who might 

have gotten his firearm taken away from him 

if push came to shove 

i think he waited too long much to long before pulling his firearm


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> There is no evidence at all that he had to shoot.



I guess he could have continued to let Trayvon beat him senseless, PMZ.  It's amazing how much damage the human body can sustain and recover from.  He could have just taken his beating and hoped the Police showed up at some point and saved him.

The problem is...there's no guarantee that you're not going suffer permanent damage or even death from blows to the head.  It's a crap shoot.  There are scores of people doing time in prisons right now for punching someone one time in the head and killing them.  Me?  I'd rather not gamble with my life that way...


----------



## Oldstyle

jon_berzerk said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> he seems passive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I studied martial arts for decades, Jon...there are people that it doesn't matter how many classes they take...they will NEVER be fighters.  That's George Zimmerman in a nutshell.  He takes a class for over a year and the instructor won't even let him get in the ring because he's afraid George will get hurt?  That says more about Zimmerman than if he took no classes at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from the get go George reminded me of a guy who might
> 
> have gotten his firearm taken away from him
> 
> if push came to shove
> 
> i think he waited too long much to long before pulling his firearm
Click to expand...


I remember a friend who always carried a baseball bat in his car for "protection".  He got into an accident and the person whom he hit was angry and confrontational.  My friend got the bat out of the car and told the other guy to back off.  The guy took the bat away...my friend ran away...and the other guy proceeded to break most of the glass on my friend's car with his newly found "toy" before he drove away.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Oldstyle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied martial arts for decades, Jon...there are people that it doesn't matter how many classes they take...they will NEVER be fighters.  That's George Zimmerman in a nutshell.  He takes a class for over a year and the instructor won't even let him get in the ring because he's afraid George will get hurt?  That says more about Zimmerman than if he took no classes at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from the get go George reminded me of a guy who might
> 
> have gotten his firearm taken away from him
> 
> if push came to shove
> 
> i think he waited too long much to long before pulling his firearm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember a friend who always carried a baseball bat in his car for "protection".  He got into an accident and the person whom he hit was angry and confrontational.  My friend got the bat out of the car and told the other guy to back off.  The guy took the bat away...my friend ran away...and the other guy proceeded to break most of the glass on my friend's car with his newly found "toy" before he drove away.
Click to expand...


yikes


----------



## Mertex

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
Click to expand...


You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal.  GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him.  So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.


----------



## PaulS1950

George was walking back to his car. That was established by the timeline and the evidence. Martin moved from "at his house" back to the point where the confrontation took place. Zimmerman was attempting to get back to his car because he had lost Martin and no longer had him in view. Martin attacked Zimmerman assaulting him. Then Martin continued to beat the man while sitting on top of him. That is a felony, battery. Zimmerman had done nothing wrong and was retreating from the area. There is an eye witness, another witness that heard the confrontation, and two 911 emergency phone recordings that back up the timeline and Zimmerman's account of the events that took place. There is also the recording of Zimmerman's none emergency call that ties all this together. Martin's knuckles were bruised showing that he was the one doing the punching. Martin's head was cut, bruised and swollen from being beaten and his knuckles were not bruised showing that he had not hit anyone. The gun was fired from 4 to six inches from Martin which means that he was very close to Zimmerman and was not retreating. The angle of the bullet travel through Martin's clothes show that he was still bent over Zimmerman when the shot was fired. 

All the evidence showed that Martin wrongfully attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman used his gun as a last resort to stop the felonious attack against him. 
The "presumption of innocence" until proven guilty and the not guilty of any charges verdict shows that justice, for Zimmerman, was served. It is unfortunate that Martin was killed. It would have been better if he could have been brought to trial for his crime of Assault and battery against Zimmerman. 
Once the trial ended and the verdict rendered the case is over. The judgement in this case (not attached to any other cases) was justifiable homicide. 
Either accept the results or be contrary to the rule of law. Martin acted contrary to the rule of law and died because the man he attacked feared for his life.


----------



## Ernie S.

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not the slightest chance that middle of the road America would have allowed that not to go to trial. I'm not even sure a majority will settle for this verdict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decision on whether something should go to trial is not made by majority vote.  That decision is made by the District Attorney usually and either a Grand Jury or a judge.  In the Zimmerman/Martin case the local District Attorney looked at the facts of the case and decided (rightly) that this was not a case that could be won in court because there was FAR too much reasonable doubt to prove Murder II or Manslaughter.
> 
> The Special Prosecutor purposely avoided going in front of a Grand Jury because she knew that they would most likely agree with the DA.  She instead went to a judge *and left out important aspects of the case* in order to get an arrest warrant served.
> 
> As for what a majority of Americans "thinks" about the verdict having any affect ON the verdict?  It won't.  That case is over.  The DOJ investigation is political theater and will result in nothing being done.  I'm sorry you don't LIKE the verdict but the jury followed the law and returned the only verdict that was possible given the evidence.
Click to expand...


An a *very* important witness, one who WAS 16 and not 18 at the time.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not the slightest chance that middle of the road America would have allowed that not to go to trial. I'm not even sure a majority will settle for this verdict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decision on whether something should go to trial is not made by majority vote.  That decision is made by the District Attorney usually and either a Grand Jury or a judge.  In the Zimmerman/Martin case the local District Attorney looked at the facts of the case and decided (rightly) that this was not a case that could be won in court because there was FAR too much reasonable doubt to prove Murder II or Manslaughter.
> 
> The Special Prosecutor purposely avoided going in front of a Grand Jury because she knew that they would most likely agree with the DA.  She instead went to a judge *and left out important aspects of the case* in order to get an arrest warrant served.
> 
> As for what a majority of Americans "thinks" about the verdict having any affect ON the verdict?  It won't.  That case is over.  The DOJ investigation is political theater and will result in nothing being done.  I'm sorry you don't LIKE the verdict but the jury followed the law and returned the only verdict that was possible given the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An a *very* important witness, one who WAS 16 and not 18 at the time.
Click to expand...


two 

there is/was a 16 year old & a 18 year old


----------



## jon_berzerk

Mertex said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal.  GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him.  So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.
Click to expand...


*You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth*

the jury got the chance to see zimmerman tell his side of the story 

the judge instructed the jury that zimmerman is presumed to be innocent 

which would include being truthful 

the jury found that to be the case 

and found him not guilty of murder or manslaughter 

that his act was justifiable


----------



## Ernie S.

PMZ said:


> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.



Zimmerman was not on patrol as a function of the neighborhood watch. He was on his way to Target. He was licensed to carry a firearm and 100% within his rights to do so.
In retrospect, carrying his firearm while out running errands, may just have saved his life.
I get it. You're pissed a 17 year old black kid died, but the responsibility for his death lies directly on his own attitude.
Had the State shown that Zimmerman assaulted Martin, George would be in jail. Instead, the defense, with the unselfish help of several Prosecution witnesses, proved Martin attacked Zimmerman.


----------



## Ernie S.

Mertex said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal.  GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him.  So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.
Click to expand...

Of course we are assuming GZ's story is the truth. All forensic evidence and testimony supports his version and zip, zero, nadda refutes it.
The fact that you want GZ to do time is not enough to send a man to jail.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was not on patrol as a function of the neighborhood watch. He was on his way to Target. He was licensed to carry a firearm and 100% within his rights to do so.
> In retrospect, carrying his firearm while out running errands, may just have saved his life.
> I get it. You're pissed a 17 year old black kid died, but the responsibility for his death lies directly on his own attitude.
> Had the State shown that Zimmerman assaulted Martin, George would be in jail. Instead, the defense, with the unselfish help of several Prosecution witnesses, proved Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

*
It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy. Leave his gun at home or in the car. Carrying it to the scene, against police advice, shows grave indifference to human life IMO.* 

he was not given that advice 

he had a legal right to have a firearm 

having a firearm handy proves often to be a life saver


----------



## Ernie S.

jon_berzerk said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The decision on whether something should go to trial is not made by majority vote.  That decision is made by the District Attorney usually and either a Grand Jury or a judge.  In the Zimmerman/Martin case the local District Attorney looked at the facts of the case and decided (rightly) that this was not a case that could be won in court because there was FAR too much reasonable doubt to prove Murder II or Manslaughter.
> 
> The Special Prosecutor purposely avoided going in front of a Grand Jury because she knew that they would most likely agree with the DA.  She instead went to a judge *and left out important aspects of the case* in order to get an arrest warrant served.
> 
> As for what a majority of Americans "thinks" about the verdict having any affect ON the verdict?  It won't.  That case is over.  The DOJ investigation is political theater and will result in nothing being done.  I'm sorry you don't LIKE the verdict but the jury followed the law and returned the only verdict that was possible given the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An a *very* important witness, one who WAS 16 and not 18 at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> two
> 
> there is/was a 16 year old & a 18 year old
Click to expand...


The 18 year old, we heard from. It would be interesting to see what Crump would do if forced to reveal the name of the 16 year old. Would he say that he gave De le Rionda her name to save his ass?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> An a *very* important witness, one who WAS 16 and not 18 at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> two
> 
> there is/was a 16 year old & a 18 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 18 year old, we heard from. It would be interesting to see what Crump would do if forced to reveal the name of the 16 year old. Would he say that he gave De le Rionda her name to save his ass?
Click to expand...


we have the name 

it is posted on the other thread


----------



## Oldstyle

Mertex said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that GZ was found not guilty of breaking FL's laws for murder,  which I agree with,  but also manslaughter,  which I don't agree with.
> 
> It would have been simple for him to have prevented this tragedy.  Leave his gun at home or in the car.  Carrying it to the scene,  against police advice,  shows grave indifference to human life IMO.
> 
> TM,  on the other hand,  committed no crime.  Was not a threat to anyone.  His life was endangered not by his actions but by GZ's.
> 
> I do believe that GZ regretted his actions.  Too little,  too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal.  GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him.  So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.
Click to expand...


I'm amused by all you liberals that hate "Stand Your Ground" so much yet don't seem to understand the law at all.  For Trayvon Martin to be able to use "Stand Your Ground" as a defense first of all he can't walk BACK to confront George Zimmerman.  That's Martin *causing* the confrontation.  Martin would also have to be in fear for his life or of great bodily harm.  Zimmerman is walking back to his SUV to meet the Police.  He's not attacking Martin or acting in a threatening manner.  You can't sucker punch someone that hasn't done anything even remotely illegal and then say that you aren't guilty of assault and battery because of "Stand Your Ground".  You seem to think that "Stand Your Ground" is a license to attack anyone you want at any time you want...it isn't!


----------



## Katzndogz

Oldstyle said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied martial arts for decades, Jon...there are people that it doesn't matter how many classes they take...they will NEVER be fighters.  That's George Zimmerman in a nutshell.  He takes a class for over a year and the instructor won't even let him get in the ring because he's afraid George will get hurt?  That says more about Zimmerman than if he took no classes at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from the get go George reminded me of a guy who might
> 
> have gotten his firearm taken away from him
> 
> if push came to shove
> 
> i think he waited too long much to long before pulling his firearm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember a friend who always carried a baseball bat in his car for "protection".  He got into an accident and the person whom he hit was angry and confrontational.  My friend got the bat out of the car and told the other guy to back off.  The guy took the bat away...my friend ran away...and the other guy proceeded to break most of the glass on my friend's car with his newly found "toy" before he drove away.
Click to expand...


If someone is not strong enough to use a bat as a weapon they should use something else.  If your friend had his bat, and got out of the car immediately rushing his opponent swinging, he might not have had it taken away.

The worst thing a person can do when wielding a weapon is to make a threat or act aggressively.  Such hesitancy is an invitation to take it away.


----------



## Oldstyle

Katzndogz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the get go George reminded me of a guy who might
> 
> have gotten his firearm taken away from him
> 
> if push came to shove
> 
> i think he waited too long much to long before pulling his firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember a friend who always carried a baseball bat in his car for "protection".  He got into an accident and the person whom he hit was angry and confrontational.  My friend got the bat out of the car and told the other guy to back off.  The guy took the bat away...my friend ran away...and the other guy proceeded to break most of the glass on my friend's car with his newly found "toy" before he drove away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone is not strong enough to use a bat as a weapon they should use something else.  If your friend had his bat, and got out of the car immediately rushing his opponent swinging, he might not have had it taken away.
> 
> The worst thing a person can do when wielding a weapon is to make a threat or act aggressively.  Such hesitancy is an invitation to take it away.
Click to expand...


The worst thing a person can do is introduce a weapon into a confrontation that they don't really have any intention of using.  My friend assumed the mere threat of the bat would intimidate the other man.  It didn't!  It's no different with a gun.  If you pull one and tell someone to get back?  You've painted yourself into a corner if they don't.  It's why you shouldn't take a gun out unless you're prepared to shoot it.  I have no way of knowing what Trayvon Martin's response would have been if Zimmerman had pulled his gun before the first punch and told him to stay back.  He very well might have done so and that would have been the end of it.  Knowing Zimmerman's demeanor however I strongly suspect that George would have hesitated if Martin continued towards him.


----------



## Katzndogz

I've taken (and taught) self defense classes for women.  Women might have a number of weapons at their disposal, keys, a high heeled shoe, a pen can be a weapon.   While it is simple to teach women how to use items as weapons, it is almost impossible to remove the hesitancy.  Yes a key can put someone's eye out, but women won't do it.  They will go right up to that point and stop.   Yes it is possible to kill someone with a shoe, but not many women will.

When they do, it ends up like this

Ana Lilia Trujillo Allegedly Claims She Killed Boyfriend With Stiletto High Heel In Self Defense

HOUSTON &#8212; Officials say a Houston woman accused of stabbing her boyfriend to death with a stiletto high heel told police she was trying to protect herself.

Houston police say 44-year-old Ana Lilia Trujillo told investigators the man was attacking her and she acted in self-defense.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Think Trayvon's Record Said Something About His Character? Well, Get A Load Of This.

Lies about Trayvon compared to facts about another well known individual.


----------



## Oldstyle

Luddly Neddite said:


> Think Trayvon's Record Said Something About His Character? Well, Get A Load Of This.
> 
> Lies about Trayvon compared to facts about another well known individual.



You know what, Luddly?  That laughable MSNBC piece simply illustrates how this case was handled by the main stream media right from the start.  If you'll notice, they don't refute any of what they refer to as "character assassination".  The truth is...Trayvon Martin WAS suspended from school 3 times!  He WAS found in possession of a baggy with pot residue and a pipe in school!  He WAS caught on video defacing school property with obscene graffiti!  He WAS found in possession of stolen jewelry!

What does George W. Bush's drunk driving record have to do with THAT?  It's absurd.  What's even MORE absurd is that MSNBC used Bush's run ins with the law to attempt to assassinate HIS character yet they now feel that anyone doing the same thing to Trayvon Martin is wronging him?  Martin Bashear isn't intelligent enough to grasp the blatant hypocrisy in what he's saying.  It's amusing to watch...


----------



## Oldstyle

Only progressives would label someone pointing out facts...as telling "lies".  Luddly doesn't seem to grasp how ridiculous that claim is.

There is MSNBC...still using the picture of Trayvon Martin from four years earlier as they claim that someone *else* is trying to portray him in an untruthful manner.


----------



## numan

Pop23 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan
Click to expand...

You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.

It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.

But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.

.


----------



## Gadawg73

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.
> 
> It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.
> 
> But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, no Canadian would ever report anything other than the gospel truth.
Canada has some of the highest incest rates in the "civilized" world.


----------



## BobPlumb

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you smoking crack?  Trayvon Martin committed no crime?  He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony.  What part of that don't you *GET*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal.  GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him.  So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we are assuming GZ's story is the truth. All forensic evidence and testimony supports his version and zip, zero, nadda refutes it.
> The fact that you want GZ to do time is not enough to send a man to jail.
Click to expand...


There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story.  For example, who threw the first punch.  GZ says that TM started the  fight by punching GZ in the nose.  Assuming that GZ  is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.  

The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up.  There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.  

If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it.  The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.


----------



## Gadawg73

BobPlumb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal.  GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him.  So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are assuming GZ's story is the truth. All forensic evidence and testimony supports his version and zip, zero, nadda refutes it.
> The fact that you want GZ to do time is not enough to send a man to jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story.  For example, who threw the first punch.  GZ says that TM started the  fight by punching GZ in the nose.  Assuming that GZ  is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.
> 
> The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up.  There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.
> 
> If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it.  The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.
Click to expand...


A defendant NEVER HAS TO COLLABORATE ANY OF HIS STORY!

Standard jury charge in the Judge's instructions to the jury in ALL cases and specifically this one:
"George Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution as they have to prove each and every element of their indictment and charges".


----------



## BobPlumb

Gadawg73 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are assuming GZ's story is the truth. All forensic evidence and testimony supports his version and zip, zero, nadda refutes it.
> The fact that you want GZ to do time is not enough to send a man to jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story.  For example, who threw the first punch.  GZ says that TM started the  fight by punching GZ in the nose.  Assuming that GZ  is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.
> 
> The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up.  There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.
> 
> If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it.  The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A defendant NEVER HAS TO COLLABORATE ANY OF HIS STORY!
> 
> Standard jury charge in the Judge's instructions to the jury in ALL cases and specifically this one:
> "George Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution as they have to prove each and every element of their indictment and charges".
Click to expand...


You and I are in agreement.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution.  However, it didn't hurt Zimmerman's case that the available evidence generally supported his story.  I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt; the evidence be damned.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

BobPlumb said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story.  For example, who threw the first punch.  GZ says that TM started the  fight by punching GZ in the nose.  Assuming that GZ  is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.
> 
> The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up.  There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.
> 
> If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it.  The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A defendant NEVER HAS TO COLLABORATE ANY OF HIS STORY!
> 
> Standard jury charge in the Judge's instructions to the jury in ALL cases and specifically this one:
> "George Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution as they have to prove each and every element of their indictment and charges".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I are in agreement.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution.  However, it didn't hurt Zimmerman's case that the available evidence generally supported his story.  I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt; the evidence be damned.
Click to expand...


They're convinced because NBC told them that Zimmerman was a racist murderer. People should not even watch that network, frankly. Make em pay for their BS.


----------



## Oldstyle

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.
> 
> It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.
> 
> But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


God, but you're a douche...

Civilized world?  Canada?  You've given the rest of humanity, hockey, a form of bacon and sealskin boots!  You wouldn't know civilized if it ran up your leg and bit you on your pompous ass!


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Oldstyle said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.
> 
> It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.
> 
> But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, but you're a douche...
> 
> Civilized world?  Canada?  You've given the rest of humanity, hockey, a form of bacon and sealskin boots!  You wouldn't know civilized if it ran up your leg and bit you on your pompous ass!
Click to expand...


He's right, Numan. It's hack reporting. It doesn't bother to mention that Trayvon very well may have been the attacker. And then it calls the town racist because it has a 'mostly white police force' and because they 'waited 44 days to press charges.' Well:

A. The first claim is spurious
B. The police had no intention of pressing charges. It was a political decision by the state. 

Then the white reporter and a black resident engage in boresome race baiting satire: 

White reporter: "I'm gonna drive you." 
Black resident: "Oh really? That's a change?"

Then they go back into the town's history. They call the town's founder, Henry Sanford, "a failed fruit farmer" and go into his alleged role in slavery:

Yet, this from his wiki page:



> Henry Shelton Sanford (June 15, 1823  May 21, 1891) was a wealthy American diplomat, businessman, and aristocrat from Connecticut who served as United States Ambassador to Belgium from 1861 to 1869. He is also known for founding the city of Sanford, Florida[1] and for successfully lobbying the United States into recognizing King Leopold II's claim to the Congo region in central Africa, the area that would become Leopold's privately controlled Congo Free State.



Sanford most definitely had money issues with his 'fruit farming' business, but in large part b/c he was doing overseas ventures. Nonetheless, he did create a large town that even paid for 100 Sweden immigrants. Not sure, if 'failure' is the word for him. He certainly did appear to be into slavery, but so was often the case of southerners in the freaking 19th century.

Then we learn from the video that Florida itself, "they say" (never bothers to mention who they are) had more lynchings per capita than any other state. Nonetheless, it's showing ancient history, to somehow prove great racism today.

Then the black resident smiles as he tells of a story of kids allegedly calling him and his brother the so-called n-word. 

Then the reporter says that his uncle was lynched for whistling at a white woman. They don't bother to explore that wive's tale. Nonetheless, that would've been decades prior too.

Then they use hyperbole to say how Jackie Robinson was allegedly ran out of town during his baseball visit. Never mind that he probably played the games and was just fine. But, it's better to say 'ran out of town.' But again, this was like 60 years ago. What relevance does it have to George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin?

The video then glorifies the white police chief being fired to bring in the black police chief.

Then the video alleges racism b/c in 2010 a white man beat up a homeless black man. The white man was the son of a police lieutenant and the reporter doesn't bother to tell that George Zimmerman actually led the charge for justice!

And it's funny b/c they show the town and it's all peaceful. No strife. 

You need to learn how to discern reporting from propaganda, Numan.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

^^^
My bad. It was OldStyle. No surprises there. A hack video posted by a hack. Him and Lakota probably exchange hack links in their free time.


----------



## Circe

Katzndogz said:


> Trayvon Martin was a thug in training. This is not important except in one respect. Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others? The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.



Tray-von was a thug in training; we know that from the stolen jewelry found in his backpack, the school expulsion, the idiot and illiterate girlfriend, the fact that he was standing around in the rain casing the houses, and his violence.

The fewer of the Trayvon criminal type around, the better.


----------



## Circe

Oldstyle said:


> The worst thing a person can do is introduce a weapon into a confrontation that they don't really have any intention of using.  My friend assumed the mere threat of the bat would intimidate the other man.  It didn't!  It's no different with a gun.  If you pull one and tell someone to get back?  You've painted yourself into a corner if they don't.  It's why you shouldn't take a gun out unless you're prepared to shoot it.  I have no way of knowing what Trayvon Martin's response would have been if Zimmerman had pulled his gun before the first punch and told him to stay back.  He very well might have done so and that would have been the end of it.  Knowing Zimmerman's demeanor however I strongly suspect that George would have hesitated if Martin continued towards him.




I'm inclined to agree, as a woman: make no threats. You lose the surprise advantage.

I believe in the old rule: never point a gun at anyone unless you mean to use it.

Then do so.


----------



## numan

numan said:


> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.


Thank you, Gatsby, for taking the trouble to watch the CBC report. I would be surprised if many other readers here did. 

Naturally, I disagree completely with your interpretation of it, but I must thank you for some new information which was not in the report:



TheGreatGatsby said:


> Then they go back into the town's history. They call the town's founder, Henry Sanford, "a failed fruit farmer" and go into his alleged role in slavery:
> 
> Yet, this from his wiki page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Shelton Sanford (June 15, 1823  May 21, 1891) was a wealthy American diplomat, businessman, and aristocrat from Connecticut who served as United States Ambassador to Belgium from 1861 to 1869. He is also known for founding the city of Sanford, Florida[1] and for successfully lobbying the United States into recognizing King Leopold II's claim to the Congo region in central Africa, the area that would become Leopold's privately controlled Congo Free State.
Click to expand...

Apparently your knowledge of recent world history does not extend to King Leopold being one of the most evil human beings who has ever lived -- right up there with Hitler and Stalin!! His monstrous exploitation of the "Belgian" Congo, and brutalizing and torturing and murdering its people, are legendary -- and the founder of Sanford, Florida, you have revealed, was his staunch ally!!

I did not expect that the history of Sanford could be more loathsome than was revealed in the CBC news report, but, thanks to you, I now know how its vileness surpassed my worst imaginings!!

You might consider reading Joseph Conrad's *Heart of Darkness* to gain a tongue-tip taste of the horror which King Leopold and his ally, Henry Sanford, unleashed.
.


----------



## beagle9

numan said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Gatsby, for taking the trouble to watch the CBC report. I would be surprised if many other readers here did.
> 
> Naturally, I disagree completely with your interpretation of it, but I must thank you for some new information which was not in the report:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they go back into the town's history. They call the town's founder, Henry Sanford, "a failed fruit farmer" and go into his alleged role in slavery:
> 
> Yet, this from his wiki page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Shelton Sanford (June 15, 1823  May 21, 1891) was a wealthy American diplomat, businessman, and aristocrat from Connecticut who served as United States Ambassador to Belgium from 1861 to 1869. He is also known for founding the city of Sanford, Florida[1] and for successfully lobbying the United States into recognizing King Leopold II's claim to the Congo region in central Africa, the area that would become Leopold's privately controlled Congo Free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your knowledge of recent world history does not extend to King Leopold being one of the most evil human beings who has ever lived -- right up there with Hitler and Stalin!! His monstrous exploitation of the "Belgian" Congo, and brutalizing and torturing and murdering its people, are legendary -- and the founder of Sanford, Florida, you have revealed, was his staunch ally!!
> 
> I did not expect that the history of Sanford could be more loathsome than was revealed in the CBC news report, but, thanks to you, I now know how its vileness surpassed my worst imaginings!!
> 
> You might consider reading Joseph Conrad's *Heart of Darkness* to gain a tongue-tip taste of the horror which King Leopold and his ally, Henry Sanford, unleashed.
> .
Click to expand...

Kidding me right, so you think modern day Sanford can be connected to someone or something that existed way back then ? WOW what a stretch that is for modern times in which we all live in today in this nation.


----------



## Pop23

Admit it dimwits, if George ZimmerHEROman had not had a gun that night, but was able to put his hands on a large rock and bashed TMs head in with it, killing him, none of you would give a rats butt about any of this

You're agenda failed as poorly as your arguments. 

You have all become boring


----------



## PaulS1950

Numan,
How do you connect a man fighting for a region to be free with a dictator who ruthlessly kills his own people. Was the king a puppet of Henry Sanford? Did Henry put him in office? Was Henry in control of the politics in the Congo?

You should consider joining the writing staff at NBC or better yet MSNBC. You would fit right in with the other writers who lie and connect the unconnectable to further their version of how things should have happened instead of actually reporting the news.


----------



## PMZ

If GZ had stayed in his car there would have been no incident.


----------



## BobPlumb

If everyone had just stayed home that night then their would had been no incident.


----------



## thanatos144

PMZ said:


> If GZ had stayed in his car there would have been no incident.



If Trayvon would have kept his hands to himself  he would still be alive. If you raise a punk they act like a punk.


----------



## Wake

You guys have made this thread interesting. I'm grateful.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> If GZ had stayed in his car there would have been no incident.



If Trayvon would just go home, there won't be a tragedy.


----------



## testarosa

TheGreatGatsby said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A defendant NEVER HAS TO COLLABORATE ANY OF HIS STORY!
> 
> Standard jury charge in the Judge's instructions to the jury in ALL cases and specifically this one:
> "George Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution as they have to prove each and every element of their indictment and charges".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are in agreement.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution.  However, it didn't hurt Zimmerman's case that the available evidence generally supported his story.  I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt; the evidence be damned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're convinced because NBC told them that Zimmerman was a racist murderer. People should not even watch that network, frankly. Make em pay for their BS.
Click to expand...


I don't ;-)

I haven't for a year.

Money where your mouth is and all that.  It's the VETO channel.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> If GZ had stayed in his car there would have been no incident.



There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin made a decision to walk back and confront the "Cracker".  There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin made a decision to sucker punch someone instead of talking it out.  There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin wasn't satisfied to just knock George Zimmerman down...he made a decision to REALLY give him an ass kicking!  That's why there was an "incident".  Not because George Zimmerman tried to keep a suspicious person in sight until the Police arrived.


----------



## beagle9

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If GZ had stayed in his car there would have been no incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin made a decision to walk back and confront the "Cracker".  There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin made a decision to sucker punch someone instead of talking it out.  There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin wasn't satisfied to just knock George Zimmerman down...he made a decision to REALLY give him an ass kicking!  That's why there was an "incident".  Not because George Zimmerman tried to keep a suspicious person in sight until the Police arrived.
Click to expand...

Great points...


----------



## PMZ

Of course George Zimmerman's story was supported by the evidence.  It was designed to be.


----------



## BobPlumb

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If GZ had stayed in his car there would have been no incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin made a decision to walk back and confront the "Cracker".  There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin made a decision to sucker punch someone instead of talking it out.  There was an "incident" because Trayvon Martin wasn't satisfied to just knock George Zimmerman down...he made a decision to REALLY give him an ass kicking!  That's why there was an "incident".  Not because George Zimmerman tried to keep a suspicious person in sight until the Police arrived.
Click to expand...


Didn't you know -- If a white (hisp.) profiles a black as being "up to no good", that is just cause for the black person to beat the crap out the white person to teach him a lesson.  And its the black person that is defending his self.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Of course George Zimmerman's story was supported by the evidence.  It was designed to be.



George Zimmerman's "story" is supported by the evidence because George Zimmerman was telling the truth.  

It's the Prosecution's "story" that didn't add up.  They wanted us to believe that George Zimmerman was a depraved racist cop wannabe, who racially profiled an innocent unarmed teen and stalked him despite being told not to by Police.  Only when you looked at the evidence instead of the propaganda that was put out by the main stream media the Prosecution's "story" had massive holes in it.

First of all, it turns out that the man in question was on record leading the protest against the white son of a Sanford Police officer who beat a black homeless man.  Why would a "racist" do that?  It makes no sense at all...

It also comes to light that George Zimmerman was offered the opportunity to become part of the volunteer force of the Sanford Police and declined.  Why would someone who was a "cop wannabe" do that?  It makes no sense at all...

The Prosecution says all of George Zimmerman's phone calls prove he was "obsessive".  Only the Prosecution's own witness, the woman that was in charge of setting up Neighborhood Watch programs for the Police stated that it was the Watch "Captain" who was supposed to be the go between, between the Police and the Watch.  Zimmerman called so many times because that was the way the system was designed BY THE POLICE!  Once again the Prosecution's case makes no sense at all...

The Prosecution wanted you to believe that it was Trayvon Martin that was "afraid" of the scary man who followed him in the darkness.  Yet the Prosecution's own witness stated that Martin had run away from Zimmerman and was outside of the condo he was staying at THEN WENT BACK TO CONFRONT THE "CREEPY ASSED CRACKER"!  Once again, the Prosecution's case makes no sense at all...

And then there is Trayvon himself.  The Prosecution wanted us to believe that this was an innocent teen who simply went to the store to buy candy.  Only when you REALLY look into who Trayvon Martin *was* and why he was *in* Sanford, Florida in the first place it's quickly apparent that the Prosecution's portrayal of an innocent teen *unfairly *profiled by Zimmerman falls apart as well.  This was a young man with a troubled past, serving his 3rd suspension from High School because he'd been caught defacing school property with obscene graffiti, being in possession of a large quantity of stolen jewelry and having a baggy with pot residue in it and a marijuana pipe.  So the truth is...what George suspected Martin of?  Casing the property and acting like he was on drugs?  That appraisal is actually spot on with who Trayvon Martin WAS.  The only reason he's IN Sanford is that he had been kicked out of High School for *doing* what George Martin suspected he was up to in the Twin Lakes community.  Once again the Prosecution's case makes no sense...


----------



## numan

beagle9 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:
> 
> *A place called Sanford*
> 
> *The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.*
> 
> It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.
> 
> It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Gatsby, for taking the trouble to watch the CBC report. I would be surprised if many other readers here did.
> 
> Naturally, I disagree completely with your interpretation of it, but I must thank you for some new information which was not in the report:
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they go back into the town's history. They call the town's founder, Henry Sanford, "a failed fruit farmer" and go into his alleged role in slavery:
> 
> Yet, this from his wiki page:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your knowledge of recent world history does not extend to King Leopold being one of the most evil human beings who has ever lived -- right up there with Hitler and Stalin!! His monstrous exploitation of the "Belgian" Congo, and brutalizing and torturing and murdering its people, are legendary -- and the founder of Sanford, Florida, you have revealed, was his staunch ally!!
> 
> I did not expect that the history of Sanford could be more loathsome than was revealed in the CBC news report, but, thanks to you, I now know how its vileness surpassed my worst imaginings!!
> 
> You might consider reading Joseph Conrad's *Heart of Darkness* to gain a tongue-tip taste of the horror which King Leopold and his ally, Henry Sanford, unleashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kidding me right, so you think modern day Sanford can be connected to someone or something that existed way back then ? WOW what a stretch that is for modern times in which we all live in today in this nation.
Click to expand...

I certainly think it has considerable relevance in the light of the long and unremitting history of racism in the Sanford region, as was so clearly revealed in the CBC National News report.

Watch the news report linked above and judge for yourself.
.


----------



## PaulS1950

The history of Sanford might be full of racism - at least historically. So what?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.
Zimmerman didn't know what race he was until he approached Zimmerman's car - as recorded on the non-emergency call. The operator asked what race he was and Zimmerman replied, "I don't know" and then as he approached Zimmerman's car he said, "he looks black". He made the call before it was known that he was black. Race wasn't an issue.

Zimmerman tried to follow Martin so he could give a location to the police and an address for the dispatcher. He lost Martin and got within 30 yards of his truck when Martin attacked him. Martin must have followed him back or gotten ahead of him after leaving the proximity of where he was staying in order to confront Zimmerman before he could get into his car. That is when the incident began. Martin attacked Zimmerman committing the felony of assault and battery. Zimmerman, thinking his life was in danger used the only defense he had and shot his attacker in self defense.

Under the law he was presumed innocent and after the trial he was pronounced not guilty of any crimes. He is innocent of any wrong-doing in the incident. 
Not guilty! With the evidence presented and the testimony given along with his own account of the actions taken combined with witness testimony he was found innocent of all charges.

That means he committed no crimes - not one - in this case.
Martin is the only one that committed any crime and that was his assault on Zimmerman.


----------



## Circe

Attitudes are really hardening because of this case, just like the other bad case, the O.J. Simpson murder of his wife. A total race split on attitudes toward both cases.


----------



## numan

'

Yes, and no one _really_ knows what happened !!

A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving  and defending their ignorance !!

.


----------



## Circe

numan said:


> '
> 
> Yes, and no one _really_ knows what happened !!
> 
> A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving  and defending their ignorance !!
> 
> .



It's obvious what happened. 

You're the only one who can't figure it out.


----------



## Gadawg73

A jury that heard ALL of the witnesses testify and be subject to cross examination, that saw ALL of the evidence and heard ALL of the Judge's jury instructions and charges found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY.
The same jury that DID NOT have their minds made up BEFORE the trial because they WERE NOT INFLUENCED by media like the dumb ass low information citizen sheep here.


----------



## Oldstyle

numan said:


> '
> 
> Yes, and no one _really_ knows what happened !!
> 
> A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving  and defending their ignorance !!
> 
> .



Gee, Numan...don't you have an igloo to build somewhere?  You know...Canada's contribution to world architecture?  Eh?


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> '
> 
> Yes, and no one _really_ knows what happened !!
> 
> A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving  and defending their ignorance !!
> 
> .



Yes we do!

Civilized countries have this thing called a Jury system

A Jury said Zimmerman did nothing legally wrong

That's all that matters

No go back to the global warming threads and let the grown ups handle this.


----------



## PMZ

' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."' 

Not an objective perspective.


----------



## testarosa

numan said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Gatsby, for taking the trouble to watch the CBC report. I would be surprised if many other readers here did.
> 
> Naturally, I disagree completely with your interpretation of it, but I must thank you for some new information which was not in the report:
> 
> 
> Apparently your knowledge of recent world history does not extend to King Leopold being one of the most evil human beings who has ever lived -- right up there with Hitler and Stalin!! His monstrous exploitation of the "Belgian" Congo, and brutalizing and torturing and murdering its people, are legendary -- and the founder of Sanford, Florida, you have revealed, was his staunch ally!!
> 
> I did not expect that the history of Sanford could be more loathsome than was revealed in the CBC news report, but, thanks to you, I now know how its vileness surpassed my worst imaginings!!
> 
> You might consider reading Joseph Conrad's *Heart of Darkness* to gain a tongue-tip taste of the horror which King Leopold and his ally, Henry Sanford, unleashed.
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding me right, so you think modern day Sanford can be connected to someone or something that existed way back then ? WOW what a stretch that is for modern times in which we all live in today in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly think it has considerable relevance in the light of the long and unremitting history of racism in the Sanford region, as was so clearly revealed in the CBC National News report.
> 
> Watch the news report linked above and judge for yourself.
> .
Click to expand...


You're really pissing off people with ties to Sanford with this continually calling them racists thing.


----------



## Vox

PMZ said:


> ' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'
> 
> Not an objective perspective.



and? which word is a racist one?


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> ' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'
> 
> Not an objective perspective.



What's amusing is that the Prosecution tried to make that call proof that George Zimmerman was out of control that night...a rabid vigilante out for street justice!!!  But when you listen to the entire call the thing that stands out is Zimmerman's lack of passion.  He's not angry.  He's a little frustrated because the Police can't seem to catch the people who are committing the break-ins that are plaguing the neighborhood but other than that one outburst, which wasn't as emphatic as the Prosecutor tried to make it seem in his opening, George Zimmerman is completely calm...speaking in a level voice as he answers the dispatcher's questions.  He's not screaming...he's not yelling...he's not excited.  He's just a guy trying to do the right thing and report a suspicious person.

As for whether the perspective is "objective"?  The neighborhood was being targeted by teens for break-ins.  The Police had been called to that area almost 500 times that year alone.  There was obviously a problem!  If Zimmerman is calling the Police to report the guy who's cleaning the pool as being "suspicious" then his "perspective" would be suspect...but he's calling to report a strange teen walking around the neighborhood in the rain who appears to be looking in people's houses...EXACTLY the type of person who WAS breaking into homes there!


----------



## PMZ

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'
> 
> Not an objective perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that the Prosecution tried to make that call proof that George Zimmerman was out of control that night...a rabid vigilante out for street justice!!!  But when you listen to the entire call the thing that stands out is Zimmerman's lack of passion.  He's not angry.  He's a little frustrated because the Police can't seem to catch the people who are committing the break-ins that are plaguing the neighborhood but other than that one outburst, which wasn't as emphatic as the Prosecutor tried to make it seem in his opening, George Zimmerman is completely calm...speaking in a level voice as he answers the dispatcher's questions.  He's not screaming...he's not yelling...he's not excited.  He's just a guy trying to do the right thing and report a suspicious person.
> 
> As for whether the perspective is "objective"?  The neighborhood was being targeted by teens for break-ins.  The Police had been called to that area almost 500 times that year alone.  There was obviously a problem!  If Zimmerman is calling the Police to report the guy who's cleaning the pool as being "suspicious" then his "perspective" would be suspect...but he's calling to report a strange teen walking around the neighborhood in the rain who appears to be looking in people's houses...EXACTLY the type of person who WAS breaking into homes there!
Click to expand...


It would appear that you are no more objective about the taking of a human life than he was/is.


----------



## PMZ

Vox said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'
> 
> Not an objective perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and? which word is a racist one?
Click to expand...


Why do you bring up racism?


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> Yes, and no one _really_ knows what happened !!
> 
> A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving  and defending their ignorance !!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do!
> 
> Civilized countries have this thing called a Jury system
> 
> A Jury said Zimmerman did nothing legally wrong
> 
> That's all that matters
> 
> No go back to the global warming threads and let the grown ups handle this.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone believe that that for which there is insufficient evidence to prove illegality is "all that matters"?


----------



## PaulS1950

PMZ said:


> Why would anyone believe that that for which there is insufficient evidence to prove illegality is "all that matters"?



Maybe because one is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty?
You remember, our whole judicial system is based on that premise.
If there is not enough evidence to convict someone then the presumption of innocence remains. 

In this case not only was there not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman on any of the charges but the preponderance of evidence completely agreed with his account of the events in question.

He was found not guilty of any crimes - thus the presumption of innocence remains.


----------



## numan

Circe said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no one _really_ knows what happened !!
> 
> A classic example of feeble-minded Americans raving  and defending their ignorance !!
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious what happened.
> 
> You're the only one who can't figure it out.
Click to expand...

Neither of your sentences is true.

One can be pretty sure that the more things that are "obvious" to a person, the lower the IQ of that person is.

The only person who really knows what happened in that incident is Zimmerman -- and while what he claims _may_ be true, he is an interested party, and what he claims can hardly be accepted without corroborating evidence -- and sufficiently certain evidence is unattainable.

.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ' Prosecutor John Guy's first words to jurors recounted what Zimmerman told a police dispatcher in a call shortly before the fatal confrontation with Martin: "F------ punks. These a-------. They always get away."'
> 
> Not an objective perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing is that the Prosecution tried to make that call proof that George Zimmerman was out of control that night...a rabid vigilante out for street justice!!!  But when you listen to the entire call the thing that stands out is Zimmerman's lack of passion.  He's not angry.  He's a little frustrated because the Police can't seem to catch the people who are committing the break-ins that are plaguing the neighborhood but other than that one outburst, which wasn't as emphatic as the Prosecutor tried to make it seem in his opening, George Zimmerman is completely calm...speaking in a level voice as he answers the dispatcher's questions.  He's not screaming...he's not yelling...he's not excited.  He's just a guy trying to do the right thing and report a suspicious person.
> 
> As for whether the perspective is "objective"?  The neighborhood was being targeted by teens for break-ins.  The Police had been called to that area almost 500 times that year alone.  There was obviously a problem!  If Zimmerman is calling the Police to report the guy who's cleaning the pool as being "suspicious" then his "perspective" would be suspect...but he's calling to report a strange teen walking around the neighborhood in the rain who appears to be looking in people's houses...EXACTLY the type of person who WAS breaking into homes there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that you are no more objective about the taking of a human life than he was/is.
Click to expand...


A human life was "taken" that night because Trayvon Martin made a decision to escalate things to a physical confrontation with a sucker punch and then escalated that confrontation even further by getting on top of the man he just knocked down and beating him as he lay on the ground.

I'm saddened by the loss of life but I'm not overlooking what happened simply because a handgun took a teen's life.  As I've said many times before...if the Police had arrived shortly BEFORE George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin...that young man would have gone to jail on an assault and battery charge.  Trayvon Martin committed a crime against another person.  The fact that he was later shot by the person he committed that crime against doesn't change that.

This would not have happened if Martin hadn't punched Zimmerman in the face.  The Police would have arrived.  They would have sorted out who was who and everyone would have gone on their merry way.  That didn't happen though because for some reason Trayvon Martin thought a sucker punch was the correct response to someone following you at a distance.  His parents and all the rest of you Zimmerman "haters" should stop and think about how a young teen arrived at that response.  It wasn't George Zimmerman's "I don't have a problem with you."  that warranted a punch to the face.  So what made Trayvon Martin think THAT was an appropriate course of action?


----------



## PaulS1950

numan said:


> Neither of your sentences is true.
> 
> One can be pretty sure that the more things that are "obvious" to a person, the lower the IQ of that person is.
> 
> The only person who really knows what happened in that incident is Zimmerman -- and while what he claims _may_ be true, he is an interested party, and what he claims can hardly be accepted without corroborating evidence -- and sufficiently certain evidence is unattainable.



Numan,
There is one eye witness to the fight and another that heard the incident. Both were having recorded conversations with 911 operators at the time. There is the coroner's report that Martin had no injuries other than bruised knuckles and the gunshot wound. There is the non-emergency conversation that Zimmerman had with the dispatcher that was also taped. There is a multitude of evidence that was admitted in the case that along with the witness testimony that corroborates Zimmerman's story. There was no evidence that Zimmerman committed any crime.

That was sufficient information for the jury to find Zimmerman not guilty. That you refuse to accept the evidence and findings in this case shows that you have opinions that you are unwilling to change in the face of the evidence or that you are completely ignorant of the evidence, in which case you should be open enough to at least get the facts of the case in order to make an informed decision of the outcome.


----------



## numan

'
Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.

There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.

In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.

There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does *not* _prove_ it !!

.


----------



## Oldstyle

What evidence of any kind indicates that George Zimmerman is "culpable"?  I assume you're talking of culpable negligence?


----------



## Oldstyle

"Recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)"

You're equating getting out of a vehicle and following someone at a distance while talking with the Police as "recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death"?  How does following someone at a distance NOT show reasonable caution when you know the Police are coming?  Zimmerman makes no attempt to confront the person he suspects of being a burglar.  So how does *following* and *observing* possibly put another person at risk of injury or death?  It's just as absurd an argument as a Murder II or Manslaughter charge.


----------



## PaulS1950

numan said:


> '
> Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.
> 
> There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.
> 
> In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.
> 
> There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does *not* _prove_ it !!
> 
> .



If Zimmerman threw the first punch why were there no bruises on his hands?
The question before the jury was:
Was Zimmerman in fear for his life when he used deadly force?
There was evidence provided that showed Zimmerman was not emotionally and morally capable of being an aggressor. There was evidence presented that Zimmerman would rather help someone than injure them or take advantage of them. 
We know (or have evidence) that Zimmerman shot Martin.
We know (or have evidence) that the shot was fired while Martin was on top of Zimmerman and that the gun was within 4 inches of Martin fired at a 90 degree angle front to back - not up or down at him but directly at him from the vertical perspective.
That places Martin on top of Zimmerman and as the witness testified Martin was repeatedly punching Zimmerman.

We are not concerned with events that happened before the confrontation but those matters were entered into evidence as well. Martin was followed for a short time before getting away and back "at his house" and that Zimmerman after losing Martin started back toward his car and got to within 30 yards of it before the confrontation. That requires that Martin left the position "at his house" and either followed or got ahead of Zimmerman and initiated a confrontation. That adds to the "background" of the incident but ultimately has little bearing on the actual attack and Zimmerman's use of deadly force in self defense.

There is a lot of evidence if you care to look or even listen to the trial - it was posted on streaming video for the whole world to see. All the evidence is there. There is also so "grandstanding by the prosecutor filled with a number of "what if's" that bear no resemblance to the long list of evidence but then he had nothing but emotion to use to convict an innocent man - Yes, he is considered innocent until proven guilty. The facts of the case stand on their own and support Zimmerman's account of what happened. There is no evidence that supports any other story.

The fact that I agree with the evidence and the jury nearly shows that I am not the one that is silly.


----------



## numan

'
Can't you read? I have said over and over, I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not.

I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.

Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.

So many people are incapable of separating their emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.

So they richly deserve what they have gotten.

.


----------



## BobPlumb

numan said:


> '
> Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.
> 
> There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.
> 
> In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.
> 
> There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does *not* _prove_ it !!
> 
> .



The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense.  Zimmerman may be as guilty as sin, but legally he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

numan said:


> '
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, *I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not*.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> .



At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.


----------



## Oldstyle

numan said:


> '
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> .



The "prejudiced invective" has come from you...you pompous ass!  Anyone who doesn't see things* your* way, you label as too stupid to grasp your "brilliance".


----------



## PMZ

BobPlumb said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> Paul, you are just being silly. Everything you mention is circumstantial.
> 
> There is no public evidence of what may or may not have started the fight.
> 
> In the absence of that, no one really knows what happened.
> 
> There was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. That does not mean that he is not culpable. He may, indeed, be innocent of murder or manslaughter, but the evidence does *not* _prove_ it !!
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense.  Zimmerman may be as guilty as sin, but legally he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Click to expand...


Many here assume that the legal standard establishes reality. It does not in any way. Every year many cases where the legal standard judged "guilty" are overturned. Why would anyone expect the legal standard to be less error prone in the other direction? The Constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy is not because anyone thought that a "guilty" judgement defines reality. Only that less than that would allow cases to go on forever.


----------



## PMZ

For GZ's story to be the whole truth, one must believe that he was a random victim. He did nothing to provoke, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

I am incredulous that people would accept that as a reasonable position. There may be no evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that that could be the case, but common sense says that it is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. 

Clearly the legal standard defies common sense.


----------



## PaulS1950

numan said:


> '
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> .




You either didn't watch the trial, didn't believe the evidence submitted or were incapable of discerning the validity and importance of the evidence.
There is a "Universal Law" that states: You can only know what you experience.
While I am a believer in that law I can accept that Paris exists, that there is an Atlantic ocean and that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime associated with this case.

Any responsible person with an IQ at or above the national median should be able to discern Zimmerman's innocence or at least accept the jury's verdict. 
I may be wrong about the IQ part it is sometimes difficult for me to predict the actions of those who are below a 170 quotient.


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either didn't watch the trial, didn't believe the evidence submitted or were incapable of discerning the validity and importance of the evidence.
> There is a "Universal Law" that states: You can only know what you experience.
> While I am a believer in that law I can accept that Paris exists, that there is an Atlantic ocean and that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime associated with this case.
> 
> Any responsible person with an IQ at or above the national median should be able to discern Zimmerman's innocence or at least accept the jury's verdict.
> I may be wrong about the IQ part it is sometimes difficult for me to predict the actions of those who are below a 170 quotient.
Click to expand...


I think that you assume that you have "an IQ at or above the national median". 

Another rush to judgement.

Most Americans don't like folks to get away with murder. Clearly what happened in this case. He'll never be free from that fact.


----------



## PMZ

PaulS1950 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone believe that that for which there is insufficient evidence to prove illegality is "all that matters"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because one is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty?
> You remember, our whole judicial system is based on that premise.
> If there is not enough evidence to convict someone then the presumption of innocence remains.
> 
> In this case not only was there not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman on any of the charges but the preponderance of evidence completely agreed with his account of the events in question.
> 
> He was found not guilty of any crimes - thus the presumption of innocence remains.
Click to expand...


He eliminated the only reliable witness. You seem to think that the lack of any legal defense of TM, and the lack of any reliable witnesses, revealed, not obscured, reality. Extremely unlikely.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone believe that that for which there is insufficient evidence to prove illegality is "all that matters"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because one is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty?
> You remember, our whole judicial system is based on that premise.
> If there is not enough evidence to convict someone then the presumption of innocence remains.
> 
> In this case not only was there not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman on any of the charges but the preponderance of evidence completely agreed with his account of the events in question.
> 
> He was found not guilty of any crimes - thus the presumption of innocence remains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He eliminated the only reliable witness. You seem to think that the lack of any legal defense of TM, and the lack of any reliable witnesses, revealed, not obscured, reality. Extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...


Keep your head in the sand as long as you want if it makes you feel better. Evidence and the Justice system works for me.


----------



## numan

PMZ said:


> He eliminated the only reliable witness.


Thank you for saying in one short sentence what the people here are so determined not to understand.

.


----------



## numan

Lonestar_logic said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, *I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not*.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.
Click to expand...

That is another silly thing to write.

Had I been on the jury I would have been forced to vote for acquital, since *there is not sufficient evidence to determine what happened in the incident*, and so there must be a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter.

Had there been an alternative *charge of criminal stupidity* against Zimmerman, I would have voted for the maximum penalty which that hypothetical law might allow -- there is certainly sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of that !!

Not to mention convict most of the people on this thread !!

.


----------



## Gadawg73

numan said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, *I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not*.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is another silly thing to write.
> 
> Had I been on the jury I would have been forced to vote for acquital, since *there is not sufficient evidence to determine what happened in the incident*, and so there must be a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter.
> 
> Had there been an alternative *charge of criminal stupidity* against Zimmerman, I would have voted for the maximum penalty which that hypothetical law might allow -- there is certainly sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of that !!
> 
> Not to mention convict most of the people on this thread !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Takes one to know one!


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, *I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not*.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is another silly thing to write.
> 
> Had I been on the jury I would have been forced to vote for acquital, since *there is not sufficient evidence to determine what happened in the incident*, and so there must be a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter.
> 
> Had there been an alternative *charge of criminal stupidity* against Zimmerman, I would have voted for the maximum penalty which that hypothetical law might allow -- there is certainly sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of that !!
> 
> Not to mention convict most of the people on this thread !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Justice is blind. She did the right thing. Deal with it.


----------



## PMZ

Justice is blind.  She only deals with hard evidence.  Sometimes that's insufficient.  Especially when all contrary evidence has been eliminated.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

The governor should be recalled and Angela Corey should be disbarred. BTW, they're both Republicans.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> For GZ's story to be the whole truth, one must believe that he was a random victim. He did nothing to provoke, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> 
> I am incredulous that people would accept that as a reasonable position. There may be no evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that that could be the case, but common sense says that it is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.
> 
> Clearly the legal standard defies common sense.



Why must Zimmerman be a "random victim"?  Trayvon Martins attack on Zimmerman wasn't random...it was targeted.  Martin profiled Zimmerman as a "creepy assed Cracker" right before he walked back and confronted him.  Martin made a conscious decision to punch someone in the face for following him.  It wasn't random...it was a deliberate act.  It wasn't something that arose out of a discussion that grew increasingly heated.  Martin escalated the situation to physical violence when he threw that first punch.  EVERYTHING that happened after that point was due to HIS actions.


----------



## Oldstyle

numan said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, *I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not*.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is another silly thing to write.
> 
> Had I been on the jury I would have been forced to vote for acquital, since *there is not sufficient evidence to determine what happened in the incident*, and so there must be a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter.
> 
> Had there been an alternative *charge of criminal stupidity* against Zimmerman, I would have voted for the maximum penalty which that hypothetical law might allow -- there is certainly sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of that !!
> 
> Not to mention convict most of the people on this thread !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You know what, Numan?  You seem to be of the opinion that you're intelligent.  I hate to break this to you, Sparky...but I've not seen anything in your posts here that would back that up.  You can't argue the real law so you make up hypothetical ones?  Just what is the penalty for "criminal stupidity"?  Is that a felony or a misdemeanor?


----------



## Gadawg73

Oldstyle said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.
> 
> 
> 
> That is another silly thing to write.
> 
> Had I been on the jury I would have been forced to vote for acquital, since *there is not sufficient evidence to determine what happened in the incident*, and so there must be a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter.
> 
> Had there been an alternative *charge of criminal stupidity* against Zimmerman, I would have voted for the maximum penalty which that hypothetical law might allow -- there is certainly sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of that !!
> 
> Not to mention convict most of the people on this thread !!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what, Numan?  You seem to be of the opinion that you're intelligent.  I hate to break this to you, Sparky...but I've not seen anything in your posts here that would back that up.  You can't argue the real law so you make up hypothetical ones?  Just what is the penalty for "criminal stupidity"?  Is that a felony or a misdemeanor?
Click to expand...


The media's case sold to the gullible sheep was hypothetical law which was what the indictment was based on to begin with.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

numan said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you read? I have said over and over, *I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or not*.
> 
> I assert that no one else *truly knows* what happened, either.
> 
> Virtually everything written in these leagues and leagues of emotional, prejudiced invective, pro and con, is simply meaningless trash, from the point of view of what objectively happened.
> 
> You people are incapable of separating your emotions from rational evaluations, and are totally unworthy to be citizens of a free republic.
> 
> So you richly deserve what you have gotten.
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit to not being able to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion. Good thing you weren't on the jury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is another silly thing to write.
> 
> Had I been on the jury I would have been forced to vote for acquital, since *there is not sufficient evidence to determine what happened in the incident*, and so there must be a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter.
> 
> Had there been an alternative *charge of criminal stupidity* against Zimmerman, I would have voted for the maximum penalty which that hypothetical law might allow -- there is certainly sufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman of that !!
> 
> Not to mention convict most of the people on this thread !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It wasn't silly but an accurate statement that you yourself made.

You claimed to not know GZ's guilt or innocence. If you're reviewed all the evidence and testimony then a conclusion should be easy to consider.

But now it seems you walked back your previous assertion of "not knowing" and would find GZ not guilty.


----------



## Oldstyle

As soon as this trial began and the Prosecution's witnesses took the stand it was obvious that this case should have never been taken to court in the first place.  How many criminal cases have you ever seen where the Defense didn't need to call it's OWN witnesses because the Prosecution's proved their case so thoroughly?  The State of Florida wasted millions putting on this "show trial" and now the Federal Government is going to waste millions more with a charade of a civil rights investigation.

Numan now states that he'd be "forced" to find George Zimmerman not guilty as if it's a fault of the system.  The "fault" lies in people that refused to accept that this wasn't a racially motivated "crime" carried out by a gun nut, cop wannabe when the evidence overwhelmingly showed that it wasn't!  The "fault" lies in a main stream media who pushed a "narrative" of an innocent teen needlessly slain by a racist adult when the facts totally contradicted that!


----------



## Wake

Is it grasping at the wind to want to hold our media accountable for their actions? They went quite a bit out of their way to distort the facts. They manipulated us. Lied to us. Pitted us against one another. They are the ones that dumped gas on the fire. It was their goal to play us like fools. And, they mostly suceeded.


----------



## PMZ

Wake said:


> Is it grasping at the wind to want to hold our media accountable for their actions? They went quite a bit out of their way to distort the facts. They manipulated us. Lied to us. Pitted us against one another. They are the ones that dumped gas on the fire. It was their goal to play us like fools. And, they mostly suceeded.



I believe that they reported the facts as they were revealed. Many here are grasping at what they wish was true. That George Zimmerman's testimony was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, rather than the well developed and highly practiced play that it was, available to the trial because TM wasn't. 

If FL had decided not to prosecute, their reputation as a red neck state would have been forever sealed. Probably below that of Texas. This outcome is only a little better. 

America has moved on from frontier justice. Florida, not so much, yet.


----------



## numan

numan said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He eliminated the only reliable witness.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for saying in one short sentence what the people here are so determined not to understand.
Click to expand...

Considering the intransigent irrationality of so many people who are so certain that they know what happened in this incident -- despite the fact that they cannot know that -- I have been inspired to start a thread in the Law Forum :

*The Credibility of George Zimmerman*

Feel free to comment there -- if you dare.

.


----------



## hoosier88

Wake said:


> Is it grasping at the wind to want to *hold our media accountable for their actions*? They went quite a bit out of their way to distort the facts. They manipulated us. Lied to us. Pitted us against one another. They are the ones that dumped gas on the fire. It was their goal to play us like fools. And, they mostly suceeded.



(My bold)

The press is given Constitutional privilege, on the theory that a free press is necessary.  The MSM has always been problematic, they're typically owned by one side or the other.  The trend since the '60s of media consolidation & the accompanying urge to make all assets produce money, has been v. bad for the news.  Just like *People* magazine & *USA Today*, all corporate assets must contribute to the bottom line.  

Thus Fox & their bastard step-relations are entertainment venues first, with good income stats first, & Devil take the hindmost.  

The moral is that the criminal courts function in the courts, *& nowhere else*.  You might as well look to McDonald's to give you balanced, long-term healthy food for you & yours.  That's not what they're about, they're about making a profit for their shareholders.  So too the MSM - think of it as *fast news*, & don't expect anything except the occasional shot of cleavage & cute animals.  & now this ...


----------



## BobPlumb

numan said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He eliminated the only reliable witness.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for saying in one short sentence what the people here are so determined not to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering the intransigent irrationality of so many people who are so certain that they know what happened in this incident -- despite the fact that they cannot know that -- I have been inspired to start a thread in the Law Forum :
> 
> *The Credibility of George Zimmerman*
> 
> Feel free to comment there -- if you dare.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You might want to start with a little research about memory and eye witness testimony in general.  To save people some trouble I will give a brief summery -- it sucks.


----------



## Pop23

BobPlumb said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for saying in one short sentence what the people here are so determined not to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the intransigent irrationality of so many people who are so certain that they know what happened in this incident -- despite the fact that they cannot know that -- I have been inspired to start a thread in the Law Forum :
> 
> *The Credibility of George Zimmerman*
> 
> Feel free to comment there -- if you dare.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to start with a little research about memory and eye witness testimony in general.  To save people some trouble I will give a brief summery -- it sucks.
Click to expand...


It's even worse for people WHO WERE NOT THERE!


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the intransigent irrationality of so many people who are so certain that they know what happened in this incident -- despite the fact that they cannot know that -- I have been inspired to start a thread in the Law Forum :
> 
> *The Credibility of George Zimmerman*
> 
> Feel free to comment there -- if you dare.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to start with a little research about memory and eye witness testimony in general.  To save people some trouble I will give a brief summery -- it sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's even worse for people WHO WERE NOT THERE!
Click to expand...


It's even worse for people who were there but left in a body bag.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it grasping at the wind to want to hold our media accountable for their actions? They went quite a bit out of their way to distort the facts. They manipulated us. Lied to us. Pitted us against one another. They are the ones that dumped gas on the fire. It was their goal to play us like fools. And, they mostly suceeded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they reported the facts as they were revealed. Many here are grasping at what they wish was true. That George Zimmerman's testimony was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, rather than the well developed and highly practiced play that it was, available to the trial because TM wasn't.
> 
> If FL had decided not to prosecute, their reputation as a red neck state would have been forever sealed. Probably below that of Texas. This outcome is only a little better.
> 
> America has moved on from frontier justice. Florida, not so much, yet.
Click to expand...


Absolutely the ironic thread of the century

Frontier justice is exactly what the TM supporters advocate

Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts 

Sweet


----------



## jon_berzerk

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it grasping at the wind to want to hold our media accountable for their actions? They went quite a bit out of their way to distort the facts. They manipulated us. Lied to us. Pitted us against one another. They are the ones that dumped gas on the fire. It was their goal to play us like fools. And, they mostly suceeded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they reported the facts as they were revealed. Many here are grasping at what they wish was true. That George Zimmerman's testimony was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, rather than the well developed and highly practiced play that it was, available to the trial because TM wasn't.
> 
> If FL had decided not to prosecute, their reputation as a red neck state would have been forever sealed. Probably below that of Texas. This outcome is only a little better.
> 
> America has moved on from frontier justice. Florida, not so much, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely the ironic thread of the century
> 
> Frontier justice is exactly what the TM supporters advocate
> 
> Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts
> 
> Sweet
Click to expand...


out here broken nose jack 

got first hand knowledge of how the frontier justice system worked 

acquitted in his first trial 

the folks unhappy about the verdict 

retried him in Yankton under the grounds that double jeopardy did not apply 

found guilty in a couple of hours 

and holds the title of being 

the first person executed  in dakota territory by the feds


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it grasping at the wind to want to hold our media accountable for their actions? They went quite a bit out of their way to distort the facts. They manipulated us. Lied to us. Pitted us against one another. They are the ones that dumped gas on the fire. It was their goal to play us like fools. And, they mostly suceeded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they reported the facts as they were revealed. Many here are grasping at what they wish was true. That George Zimmerman's testimony was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, rather than the well developed and highly practiced play that it was, available to the trial because TM wasn't.
> 
> If FL had decided not to prosecute, their reputation as a red neck state would have been forever sealed. Probably below that of Texas. This outcome is only a little better.
> 
> America has moved on from frontier justice. Florida, not so much, yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely the ironic thread of the century
> 
> Frontier justice is exactly what the TM supporters advocate
> 
> Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts
> 
> Sweet
Click to expand...


I don't read any "Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts" from those who recognize that our system is imperfect and allowed GZ to get away with the murder that he wanted when he said what he did about "they" always getting away with it". We can only assume "it" to be a black kid walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie on. 

GZ merely showed the country the truth about red neck states. Don't leave witnesses and juries will fall for whatever you tell them.


----------



## PMZ

hoosier88 said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it grasping at the wind to want to *hold our media accountable for their actions*? They went quite a bit out of their way to distort the facts. They manipulated us. Lied to us. Pitted us against one another. They are the ones that dumped gas on the fire. It was their goal to play us like fools. And, they mostly suceeded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> The press is given Constitutional privilege, on the theory that a free press is necessary.  The MSM has always been problematic, they're typically owned by one side or the other.  The trend since the '60s of media consolidation & the accompanying urge to make all assets produce money, has been v. bad for the news.  Just like *People* magazine & *USA Today*, all corporate assets must contribute to the bottom line.
> 
> Thus Fox & their bastard step-relations are entertainment venues first, with good income stats first, & Devil take the hindmost.
> 
> The moral is that the criminal courts function in the courts, *& nowhere else*.  You might as well look to McDonald's to give you balanced, long-term healthy food for you & yours.  That's not what they're about, they're about making a profit for their shareholders.  So too the MSM - think of it as *fast news*, & don't expect anything except the occasional shot of cleavage & cute animals.  & now this ...
Click to expand...


The problem is that democracy depends on an informed electorate, that depends on all media reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, but they are businesses following the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others. 

Undereducated people also prefer having their opinions reinforced over being informed. 

What's at stake now is the future of democracy. Can it be sustained?


----------



## PMZ

What if democracy proves unsustainable because of the above? Is there an alternative that also offers freedom? If there is, I haven't seen it demonstrated in the world. If the people aren't capable of making informed choices about government, who's left? Business? The Military? The oft rumored but never seen benevolent dictator? Computers?

Will we go down in history as the first generation of Americans who were not willing to pay the price of freedom?


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to start with a little research about memory and eye witness testimony in general.  To save people some trouble I will give a brief summery -- it sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even worse for people WHO WERE NOT THERE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's even worse for people who were there but left in a body bag.
Click to expand...


The State gave his side representation with almost unlimited power.

You Fail


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> What if democracy proves unsustainable because of the above? Is there an alternative that also offers freedom? If there is, I haven't seen it demonstrated in the world. If the people aren't capable of making informed choices about government, who's left? Business? The Military? The oft rumored but never seen benevolent dictator? Computers?
> 
> Will we go down in history as the first generation of Americans who were not willing to pay the price of freedom?



Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner

We ain't that.


----------



## hoosier88

PMZ said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that *democracy depends on an informed electorate*, that depends on all media reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, but they are businesses following the one rule of business, make more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> Undereducated people also prefer having their opinions reinforced over being informed.
> 
> What's at stake now is the future of democracy. Can it be sustained?
Click to expand...


(My bold)

Yup, the framers thought that we would remain a serious people - or that @ least our political & military & religious leaders & the press would.  As long as we had bad examples (from the World) in front of us & paid attention, the republic could be sustained.  From the 1920s or so on, however, popular culture is increasingly frivolous.

It's as if the most trivial features of the Gilded Age became the bar for behavior.  Road rage, people nearly surgically attached to their cell phones, a general lack of face-to-face connection in favor of electronic connections (the premise of *You've got mail*, the movie).  An odd desire to be eternally young, as if the young of any culture ever made sensible choices about the long term.  & don't get me started on the elevation of show biz & personalities to near icon status.

Why should we idolize people who can't figure out how to work a can opener?  Who don't know their own SSN?  It's symptomatic, but it's not a good symptom.  People with real expertise - doctors, lawyers, technicians, administrators, bureaucrats - help keep society running.  Show biz types merely hog the limelight.  If they have some cathartic effect on  society @ large, well & good.  But how much catharsis does a society need?  & when was the last time you saw one of these emotive panjandrums in a worthy *role*?

Yah, we're in trouble.  & I for one don't see a groundswell of citizen concern, demanding a correction to the popular culture's values.  I think we should demand quality, for one.  That would put a stop to a lot of *schlocky* goods in the public marketplace of ideas.  Beyond that, well, someone will have to come up with more ideas ...


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they reported the facts as they were revealed. Many here are grasping at what they wish was true. That George Zimmerman's testimony was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, rather than the well developed and highly practiced play that it was, available to the trial because TM wasn't.
> 
> If FL had decided not to prosecute, their reputation as a red neck state would have been forever sealed. Probably below that of Texas. This outcome is only a little better.
> 
> America has moved on from frontier justice. Florida, not so much, yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely the ironic thread of the century
> 
> Frontier justice is exactly what the TM supporters advocate
> 
> Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts
> 
> Sweet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't read any "Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts" from those who recognize that our system is imperfect and allowed GZ to get away with the murder that he wanted when he said what he did about "they" always getting away with it". We can only assume "it" to be a black kid walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie on.
> 
> GZ merely showed the country the truth about red neck states. Don't leave witnesses and juries will fall for whatever you tell them.
Click to expand...


Epic, they = blacks

No wonder we can't move forward 

They may mean thieves. They may mean teans. They may mean hoods. They may mean gang members. They may mean skateboarders.

Quit attempting to read minds and look at the facts instead of trying to flame a fire that's already been put out.


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's even worse for people WHO WERE NOT THERE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even worse for people who were there but left in a body bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The State gave his side representation with almost unlimited power.
> 
> You Fail
Click to expand...


Nobody represents dead people. For one thing, dead people are not charged with criminal behavior. Only live people are.

GZ told a story that implied TM engaged in criminal behavior as it was the only way for him to avoid a criminal conviction. Imagine that. A criminal professing innocence. First time in history. We'll never know what TM's testimony would have been. A coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that they reported the facts as they were revealed. Many here are grasping at what they wish was true. That George Zimmerman's testimony was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, rather than the well developed and highly practiced play that it was, available to the trial because TM wasn't.
> 
> If FL had decided not to prosecute, their reputation as a red neck state would have been forever sealed. Probably below that of Texas. This outcome is only a little better.
> 
> America has moved on from frontier justice. Florida, not so much, yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely the ironic thread of the century
> 
> Frontier justice is exactly what the TM supporters advocate
> 
> Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts
> 
> Sweet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't read any "Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts" from those who recognize that our system is imperfect and allowed GZ to get away with the murder that he wanted when he said what he did about "they" always getting away with it". We can only assume "it" to be a black kid walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie on.
> 
> GZ merely showed the country the truth about red neck states. Don't leave witnesses and juries will fall for whatever you tell them.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance about Florida is showing, PMZ.  It's hardly a "red neck" State.  20% of the people who live here are Hispanic.  18% are Black.  A huge demographic are whites that have retired or migrated here from northern States and are no more "Crackers" than George Zimmerman was.  Barack Obama CARRIED Florida in the last election!  How does that happen in a "red neck" State?  Instead of posting drivel like this?  Why don't you take a good long look at the EVIDENCE that was presented at that trial and then tell me why that pathetic case was ever brought to trial?


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if democracy proves unsustainable because of the above? Is there an alternative that also offers freedom? If there is, I haven't seen it demonstrated in the world. If the people aren't capable of making informed choices about government, who's left? Business? The Military? The oft rumored but never seen benevolent dictator? Computers?
> 
> Will we go down in history as the first generation of Americans who were not willing to pay the price of freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner
> 
> We ain't that.
Click to expand...


The US is that. What we don't know is what you are.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's even worse for people who were there but left in a body bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State gave his side representation with almost unlimited power.
> 
> You Fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody represents dead people. For one thing, dead people are not charged with criminal behavior. Only live people are.
Click to expand...


What do you think a Prosecution's role is, PMZ?  They represent dead people all the time.  If someone is killed and has no family do you think their death isn't investigated and if a crime is seen...prosecuted by the State?  That's what they DO!


----------



## PMZ

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely the ironic thread of the century
> 
> Frontier justice is exactly what the TM supporters advocate
> 
> Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts
> 
> Sweet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't read any "Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts" from those who recognize that our system is imperfect and allowed GZ to get away with the murder that he wanted when he said what he did about "they" always getting away with it". We can only assume "it" to be a black kid walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie on.
> 
> GZ merely showed the country the truth about red neck states. Don't leave witnesses and juries will fall for whatever you tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance about Florida is showing, PMZ.  It's hardly a "red neck" State.  20% of the people who live here are Hispanic.  18% are Black.  A huge demographic are whites that have retired or migrated here from northern States and are no more "Crackers" than George Zimmerman was.  Barack Obama CARRIED Florida in the last election!  How does that happen in a "red neck" State?  Instead of posting drivel like this?  Why don't you take a good long look at the EVIDENCE that was presented at that trial and then tell me why that pathetic case was ever brought to trial?
Click to expand...



You're talking about the coasts. I'm talking about the interior. It's as redneck as Texas.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's even worse for people who were there but left in a body bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State gave his side representation with almost unlimited power.
> 
> You Fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody represents dead people. For one thing, dead people are not charged with criminal behavior. Only live people are.
> 
> GZ told a story that implied TM engaged in criminal behavior as it was the only way for him to avoid a criminal conviction. Imagine that. A criminal professing innocence. First time in history. We'll never know what TM's testimony would have been. A coincidence? I think not.
Click to expand...


I did not say they represent him. I said the State, with INCREDIBLE resources represented his side. The issue was if Zimmerman killed Martin in an effort to defend himself, self defense. The jury was given the duty to determine a verdict on facts, not fantasy.

The issue originally raised was frontier justice as if Zimmerman acted in that manner. The jury found he had not, that he acted in self defense. The jury found he had. NOW many on here are acting as a Kangaroo court.

Kangaroo courts are frontier justice, those advocating such are the real rednecks


----------



## PMZ

Oldstyle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State gave his side representation with almost unlimited power.
> 
> You Fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody represents dead people. For one thing, dead people are not charged with criminal behavior. Only live people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think a Prosecution's role is, PMZ?  They represent dead people all the time.  If someone is killed and has no family do you think their death isn't investigated and if a crime is seen...prosecuted by the State?  That's what they DO!
Click to expand...


The prosecution's job is not to try the victim. That is apparently what many here think the public's job is. A murdered victim's only input is the evidence. How do you think that this trial would have come out if GZ was not allowed any testimony?


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State gave his side representation with almost unlimited power.
> 
> You Fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody represents dead people. For one thing, dead people are not charged with criminal behavior. Only live people are.
> 
> GZ told a story that implied TM engaged in criminal behavior as it was the only way for him to avoid a criminal conviction. Imagine that. A criminal professing innocence. First time in history. We'll never know what TM's testimony would have been. A coincidence? I think not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say they represent him. I said the State, with INCREDIBLE resources represented his side. The issue was if Zimmerman killed Martin in an effort to defend himself, self defense. The jury was given the duty to determine a verdict on facts, not fantasy.
> 
> The issue originally raised was frontier justice as if Zimmerman acted in that manner. The jury found he had not, that he acted in self defense. The jury found he had. NOW many on here are acting as a Kangaroo court.
> 
> Kangaroo courts are frontier justice, those advocating such are the real rednecks
Click to expand...


The prosecution's "INCREDIBLE resources" consisted of almost no evidence because the only reliable eye witness was dead. GZ was as tainted a witness as there is but the only one able to say what happened. And what he said is that it was TM's fault. 

What would TM have said if GZ had not prevented him from testifying?


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely the ironic thread of the century
> 
> Frontier justice is exactly what the TM supporters advocate
> 
> Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts
> 
> Sweet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't read any "Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts" from those who recognize that our system is imperfect and allowed GZ to get away with the murder that he wanted when he said what he did about "they" always getting away with it". We can only assume "it" to be a black kid walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie on.
> 
> GZ merely showed the country the truth about red neck states. Don't leave witnesses and juries will fall for whatever you tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Epic, they = blacks
> 
> No wonder we can't move forward
> 
> They may mean thieves. They may mean teans. They may mean hoods. They may mean gang members. They may mean skateboarders.
> 
> Quit attempting to read minds and look at the facts instead of trying to flame a fire that's already been put out.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you believe that "blacks, thieves, teens, hoods, gang members, and skateboarders" all deserve summary execution.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if democracy proves unsustainable because of the above? Is there an alternative that also offers freedom? If there is, I haven't seen it demonstrated in the world. If the people aren't capable of making informed choices about government, who's left? Business? The Military? The oft rumored but never seen benevolent dictator? Computers?
> 
> Will we go down in history as the first generation of Americans who were not willing to pay the price of freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner
> 
> We ain't that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US is that. What we don't know is what you are.
Click to expand...


Didn't do well in civics class

See Representative Republic


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't read any "Screw the court system and replace it with Kangaroo courts" from those who recognize that our system is imperfect and allowed GZ to get away with the murder that he wanted when he said what he did about "they" always getting away with it". We can only assume "it" to be a black kid walking through a white neighborhood with a hoodie on.
> 
> GZ merely showed the country the truth about red neck states. Don't leave witnesses and juries will fall for whatever you tell them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epic, they = blacks
> 
> No wonder we can't move forward
> 
> They may mean thieves. They may mean teans. They may mean hoods. They may mean gang members. They may mean skateboarders.
> 
> Quit attempting to read minds and look at the facts instead of trying to flame a fire that's already been put out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you believe that "blacks, thieves, teens, hoods, gang members, and skateboarders" all deserve summary execution.
Click to expand...


No, and I never said that

Any of the above sucker punches me ( or probably you too ) takes me to the ground, pummels me, slams my head onto a concrete sidewalk, if I have a weapon, I will assure you I would be going home. Not sure about the assailant. That would be his problem 

Go ahead, now it's your turn to create more fantasy.


----------



## PMZ

Gee,  you'd think that all of that trauma would leave some marks behind.  Not to mention that you've heard only half of the story.  You seem desperate to believe that half even though,  with the other witness dead,  who's to know if any of it is true.  

Reasonable doubt is a very low bar.


----------



## PMZ

Pop23 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner
> 
> We ain't that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US is that. What we don't know is what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't do well in civics class
> 
> See Representative Republic
Click to expand...


We are a constitutional democratic Republic. 

Our consent to be governed is based on the by-laws of government specified by the Constitution. 

We don't have a monarch so we are a republic. 

We make decisions,  including who represents us based on pluralities.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is that. What we don't know is what you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't do well in civics class
> 
> See Representative Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a constitutional democratic Republic.
> 
> Our consent to be governed is based on the by-laws of government specified by the Constitution.
> 
> We don't have a monarch so we are a republic.
> 
> We make decisions,  including who represents us based on pluralities.
Click to expand...


Tell that to scotus


----------



## PMZ

He learned all of that as a Constitutional lawyer. You'd be surprised at how far you are behind,  how many of us.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Gee,  you'd think that all of that trauma would leave some marks behind.  Not to mention that you've heard only half of the story.  You seem desperate to believe that half even though,  with the other witness dead,  who's to know if any of it is true.
> 
> Reasonable doubt is a very low bar.



By that logic we need not prosecute most murder case because the most reliable witness is dead?

Just let the mob hang em. 

How's that for frontier redneck justice

Now come back with other witnesses in other cases are more reliable then those in this case


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> He learned all of that as a Constitutional lawyer. You'd be surprised at how far you are behind,  how many of us.



Please finish your sentence. Waiting with baited........

And explain how so many people are serving time for Murder when the most reliable witness is victim who, by the way

IS DEAD

Somehow the State is able in those cases, just not this one?

Please explain


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody represents dead people. For one thing, dead people are not charged with criminal behavior. Only live people are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think a Prosecution's role is, PMZ?  They represent dead people all the time.  If someone is killed and has no family do you think their death isn't investigated and if a crime is seen...prosecuted by the State?  That's what they DO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prosecution's job is not to try the victim. That is apparently what many here think the public's job is. A murdered victim's only input is the evidence. How do you think that this trial would have come out if GZ was not allowed any testimony?
Click to expand...


Let me ask you a very simple question...

If the Police had shown up prior to George Zimmerman finally managing to pull his handgun and shoot the man sitting on him...who would have been considered the "victim" then?  It's my contention that if the Police had gotten there five minutes earlier that Trayvon Martin would have been arrested for assault and battery.  How could he NOT have been?

So if Zimmerman was the obvious victim BEFORE he pulled his gun and shot Martin...then how does he lose that victim status simply for defending himself?

As for how I think the trial would have come out if GZ's testimony wasn't introduced by the Prosecution?  The same...

It would have been the same result if the Defense hadn't called a witness.  That's how weak of a case was brought by the Prosecution.  Prosecution witness after Prosecution witness introduced probable doubt upon probable doubt.  I've never actually seen a judge dismiss a case after the Prosecution rested but it could have EASILY been done in this case if it wasn't for the political ramifications.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody represents dead people. For one thing, dead people are not charged with criminal behavior. Only live people are.
> 
> GZ told a story that implied TM engaged in criminal behavior as it was the only way for him to avoid a criminal conviction. Imagine that. A criminal professing innocence. First time in history. We'll never know what TM's testimony would have been. A coincidence? I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say they represent him. I said the State, with INCREDIBLE resources represented his side. The issue was if Zimmerman killed Martin in an effort to defend himself, self defense. The jury was given the duty to determine a verdict on facts, not fantasy.
> 
> The issue originally raised was frontier justice as if Zimmerman acted in that manner. The jury found he had not, that he acted in self defense. The jury found he had. NOW many on here are acting as a Kangaroo court.
> 
> Kangaroo courts are frontier justice, those advocating such are the real rednecks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prosecution's "INCREDIBLE resources" consisted of almost no evidence because the only reliable eye witness was dead. GZ was as tainted a witness as there is but the only one able to say what happened. And what he said is that it was TM's fault.
> 
> What would TM have said if GZ had not prevented him from testifying?
Click to expand...


There was an incredible amount of evidence as to what happened that night...most of it captured on audio tapes.  Then you've got an eyewitness to the fight itself in John Good.  The truth of the matter is that there was *far* more evidence in this case than there is in MOST murder cases.

As for Zimmerman being "tainted"?  He didn't lawyer up...he didn't refuse to answer questions...he gave multiple statements on what happened that night.  When the Police tried to bluff him into a confession, saying that they had the whole thing on video, Zimmerman was relieved.  THAT'S why Chris Serino said he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.


----------



## PMZ

Once GZ murdered TM,  the only witness,  there was very little reliable evidence.  It was a simple matter to put together a story that didn't contradict the skimpy evidence and that put the blame on TM.  Especially for people like you who were desperate to exonerate GZ.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Once GZ murdered TM,  the only witness,  there was very little reliable evidence.  It was a simple matter to put together a story that didn't contradict the skimpy evidence and that put the blame on TM.  Especially for people like you who were desperate to exonerate GZ.



Or, try to make up a story about a conspiracy so those that wanted to make this a gun control case don't end up with egg on their face

That's what this is all about

Had Zimmerman picked up a rock and bashed his assailants head in none of this would have ever made national news


----------



## PMZ

Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PMZ said:


> Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.



I guess he made-up all the evidence that clearly showed self defense too. You're an idiot who sees what he wants to see. If GZ wanted to murder TM, he certainly never would have called the police in the first place.


----------



## PMZ

TheGreatGatsby said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess he made-up all the evidence that clearly showed self defense too. You're an idiot who sees what he wants to see. If GZ wanted to murder TM, he certainly never would have called the police in the first place.
Click to expand...


He had already announced to the police that he intended to right old wrongs. The police knew the probable outcome from the get go. No surprises. It was only a black guy though so the Sanford police didn't get too excited.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PMZ said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess he made-up all the evidence that clearly showed self defense too. You're an idiot who sees what he wants to see. If GZ wanted to murder TM, he certainly never would have called the police in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had already announced to the police that he intended to right old wrongs. The police knew the probable outcome from the get go. No surprises. It was only a black guy though so the Sanford police didn't get too excited.
Click to expand...


You're in your own world, dude. You have zero proof and you're just recklessly pretending that GZ is a murderer. The reality is that TM attacked GZ and the evidence shows it. But, I guess a racist like yourself wants to give the benefit of the doubt to the gang member, with a criminal pattern over the community volunteer, who has been talked up by virtually dozens of people who knew him.


----------



## PMZ

TheGreatGatsby said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess he made-up all the evidence that clearly showed self defense too. You're an idiot who sees what he wants to see. If GZ wanted to murder TM, he certainly never would have called the police in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had already announced to the police that he intended to right old wrongs. The police knew the probable outcome from the get go. No surprises. It was only a black guy though so the Sanford police didn't get too excited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're in your own world, dude. You have zero proof and you're just recklessly pretending that GZ is a murderer. The reality is that TM attacked GZ and the evidence shows it. But, I guess a racist like yourself wants to give the benefit of the doubt to the gang member, with a criminal pattern over the community volunteer, who has been talked up by virtually dozens of people who knew him.
Click to expand...


What GZ wanted the court to believe is the same as what you want to believe. Why? It excuses racism. 

What you don't want to know is how much of the country sees this as it is. The simple murder of a black teenager because he was a black teenager. And the perp, because he murdered the only witness, got away with murder. 

Shit happens.


----------



## ScienceRocks

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. The evidence supports Zimmerman but you people keep making yourself look dumber by the minute.

Please go get help.


----------



## Bumberclyde

So who actually attacked whom? I heard it was Tray who attacked Zimm, in which case he deserved a bullet.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.



You do not determine murder, only a jury does, the jury said it was not. By saying it is, you flame the fire. Are you trying to incite an action by an individual against another? 

You keep bringing up this conspiracy between Zimmerman and the Police and you want to be taken seriously? Have you brought your evidence of this to the Florida State Patrol or the FBI?


----------



## PMZ

About 1/3 of Americans do not support the death penalty for convicted murders. Why? I don't know for sure but many certainly because of the lack of any reliable process to ascertain guilt. 

GZ imposed the death penalty on TM, with a great deal less certainty than our court system would have, for unspecified crimes. Whatever he judged TM's crimes to be, they didn't even hurt George. He left the scene unscathed.

I think that it's an interesting insight on our culture that so many here want to declare George a hero for that act. 

He could have easily avoided the entire situation by doing as the experts advised him. Stay in the car. He avoided that advice because he thought that "they" had gotten away with "it" too many times. 

Who are "they", what is "it", and what right had he to declare himself police, judge, jury, and executioner?

With no real witnesses other than himself it was pretty easy for the defense to create reasonable doubt about the details. That outcome is very, very common with Florida's stand your ground culture and laws. The sunshine state has what they wanted. Frontier justice. People free to kill others for annoying them. 

George is no hero. He's a red neck racist who needed to carry a gun to feel like a man. 

TM was also not a hero. But he was free to be walking the street when and where he was.


----------



## Oldstyle

PMZ said:


> Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.



One of the hardest things for someone to do is "make up" a story under duress...and then repeat that lie under repeated questioning.  The story almost always changes.  It's why defense lawyers cringe whenever their client DOES agree to talk to the Police or to the Press.  George Zimmerman willingly told different Police officers...from the locals...to the State cops...to the Feds his version of the story and not only did it not vary in any substantial way...the evidence collected that night matched his story.  

The reason that it's NOT "child's play" to make up a story as you allege George Zimmerman did is that in doing so people inevitably get caught telling that lie because the evidence contradicts their testimony.  None of it did that with George Zimmerman's account.  That's why the Prosecution was shooting blanks this entire case.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> About 1/3 of Americans do not support the death penalty for convicted murders. Why? I don't know for sure but many certainly because of the lack of any reliable process to ascertain guilt.
> 
> GZ imposed the death penalty on TM, with a great deal less certainty than our court system would have, for unspecified crimes. Whatever he judged TM's crimes to be, they didn't even hurt George. He left the scene unscathed.
> 
> I think that it's an interesting insight on our culture that so many here want to declare George a hero for that act.
> 
> He could have easily avoided the entire situation by doing as the experts advised him. Stay in the car. He avoided that advice because he thought that "they" had gotten away with "it" too many times.
> 
> Who are "they", what is "it", and what right had he to declare himself police, judge, jury, and executioner?
> 
> With no real witnesses other than himself it was pretty easy for the defense to create reasonable doubt about the details. That outcome is very, very common with Florida's stand your ground culture and laws. The sunshine state has what they wanted. Frontier justice. People free to kill others for annoying them.
> 
> George is no hero. He's a red neck racist who needed to carry a gun to feel like a man.
> 
> TM was also not a hero. But he was free to be walking the street when and where he was.



Damn dude, do you ever not speak out of both sides of your face?

Ok, let's say exactly what you just said back at you. Please attempt to answer.

What gives YOU the right to be both Judge and Jury?

Makes you the redneck you accuse others of being.


----------



## PMZ

I assume that there's some words in my post that you disagree with.  I have no idea which ones.  Please be specific.


----------



## asaratis

PMZ said:


> Once GZ murdered TM,  the only witness,  *there was very little reliable evidence. * It was a simple matter to put together a story that didn't contradict the* skimpy evidence* and that put the blame on TM.  Especially for people like you who were desperate to exonerate GZ.


There was plenty of reliable evidence.  Zimmerman's face and head were photographed at the scene, taped telephone calls describing the events as they happened, the phone records indicating the FOUR MINUTE gap in which Trayvon could have easily completed the 30-45 second walk to his home, the eye witness account of Martin atop Zimmerman pummeling his head into concrete, the forensic evidence that was examined by a top expert in gunshot wounds and showed again that Martin was on top...none of this evidence indicated in any way that Zimmerman made up a story.  He described what actually happened.




PMZ said:


> Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.



Child's play is what appears to happen on your keyboard every time you conjure up a post.

The fact that your signature is longer than most of your posts in this thread suggests that you are hard put to find something worth saying, therefore depend heavily on short sentences and denial of the truth.



> The idea that people who don't know enough also don't know enough to realise that they don't know enough ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much simpler to get your tongue around) isn't particularly new. Berthigrand Russell in The Triumph of Stupidity in the mid 1930s said that "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Even earlier, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man in 1871, stated "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
> In his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken described the phenomenon of "pseudo-certainty" which was rampantly being displayed by pundits and politicians such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who would use "common sense" as the basis for their confidently-made assertions, but without actually backing them up with time-consuming research or pesky facts. Franken prefers the term "being a fucking moron."



It also indicates that you have little sense regarding the relative intellectual stature of highly enlightened philosophers, accomplished naturalists and comical bimbos.  When coupled with the aggregate contents of your posts here, this lends itself as evidence that you may indeed be a liberal and "a fucking moron", thus making you a true oxymoron.


----------



## PMZ

Another one with nothing to say but lacking the good sense to say nothing.  

The perfect dittohead.


----------



## asaratis

PMZ said:


> Another one with nothing to say but lacking the good sense to say nothing.
> 
> The perfect dittohead.


Proves my point.


----------



## PMZ

asaratis said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once GZ murdered TM,  the only witness,  *there was very little reliable evidence. * It was a simple matter to put together a story that didn't contradict the* skimpy evidence* and that put the blame on TM.  Especially for people like you who were desperate to exonerate GZ.
> 
> 
> 
> There was plenty of reliable evidence.  Zimmerman's face and head were photographed at the scene, taped telephone calls describing the events as they happened, the phone records indicating the FOUR MINUTE gap in which Trayvon could have easily completed the 30-45 second walk to his home, the eye witness account of Martin atop Zimmerman pummeling his head into concrete, the forensic evidence that was examined by a top expert in gunshot wounds and showed again that Martin was on top...none of this evidence indicated in any way that Zimmerman made up a story.  He described what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is murder.  How is a moot point.  Once GZ eliminated the only witness,  it was his show.  He simply had to make up a story that allowed him to be the victim that wasn't contradicted by the sparce evidence.  Child's play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child's play is what appears to happen on your keyboard every time you conjure up a post.
> 
> The fact that your signature is longer than most of your posts in this thread suggests that you are hard put to find something worth saying, therefore depend heavily on short sentences and denial of the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that people who don't know enough also don't know enough to realise that they don't know enough ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much simpler to get your tongue around) isn't particularly new. Berthigrand Russell in The Triumph of Stupidity in the mid 1930s said that "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Even earlier, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man in 1871, stated "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
> In his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken described the phenomenon of "pseudo-certainty" which was rampantly being displayed by pundits and politicians such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who would use "common sense" as the basis for their confidently-made assertions, but without actually backing them up with time-consuming research or pesky facts. Franken prefers the term "being a fucking moron."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also indicates that you have little sense regarding the relative intellectual stature of highly enlightened philosophers, accomplished naturalists and comical bimbos.  When coupled with the aggregate contents of your posts here, this lends itself as evidence that you may indeed be a liberal and "a fucking moron", thus making you a true oxymoron.
Click to expand...


No question that GZ's memory of the end of the encounter was near perfect while his recollection of the beginning was nearly totally forgotten.


----------



## numan

PMZ said:


> About 1/3 of Americans do not support the death penalty for convicted murders.


Possibly 1/3 of Americans are civilized.

But what am I saying!! The proportion couldn't possibly be that high !!

.


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> I assume that there's some words in my post that you disagree with.  I have no idea which ones.  Please be specific.



Check paragraph 5


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 1/3 of Americans do not support the death penalty for convicted murders.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly 1/3 of Americans are civilized.
> 
> But what am I saying!! The proportion couldn't possibly be that high !!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Which must be much hire than the Canadian population?


----------



## Pop23

PMZ said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once GZ murdered TM,  the only witness,  *there was very little reliable evidence. * It was a simple matter to put together a story that didn't contradict the* skimpy evidence* and that put the blame on TM.  Especially for people like you who were desperate to exonerate GZ.
> 
> 
> 
> There was plenty of reliable evidence.  Zimmerman's face and head were photographed at the scene, taped telephone calls describing the events as they happened, the phone records indicating the FOUR MINUTE gap in which Trayvon could have easily completed the 30-45 second walk to his home, the eye witness account of Martin atop Zimmerman pummeling his head into concrete, the forensic evidence that was examined by a top expert in gunshot wounds and showed again that Martin was on top...none of this evidence indicated in any way that Zimmerman made up a story.  He described what actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Child's play is what appears to happen on your keyboard every time you conjure up a post.
> 
> The fact that your signature is longer than most of your posts in this thread suggests that you are hard put to find something worth saying, therefore depend heavily on short sentences and denial of the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that people who don't know enough also don't know enough to realise that they don't know enough ("Dunning-Kruger effect" is so much simpler to get your tongue around) isn't particularly new. Berthigrand Russell in The Triumph of Stupidity in the mid 1930s said that "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Even earlier, Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man in 1871, stated "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
> In his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, Al Franken described the phenomenon of "pseudo-certainty" which was rampantly being displayed by pundits and politicians such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who would use "common sense" as the basis for their confidently-made assertions, but without actually backing them up with time-consuming research or pesky facts. Franken prefers the term "being a fucking moron."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also indicates that you have little sense regarding the relative intellectual stature of highly enlightened philosophers, accomplished naturalists and comical bimbos.  When coupled with the aggregate contents of your posts here, this lends itself as evidence that you may indeed be a liberal and "a fucking moron", thus making you a true oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that GZ's memory of the end of the encounter was near perfect while his recollection of the beginning was nearly totally forgotten.
Click to expand...


Mind reading is in admissible in a court of law.


----------



## PMZ

''Who are "they", what is "it", and what right had he to declare himself police, judge, jury, and executioner?''

Thats a question. 

Which of those roles in TM's death sentence are you calling into question?


----------



## Pop23

In self defense there is no need for any. 

Do you have a point you would like to make?


----------



## numan

Pop23 said:


> Which must be much hire than the Canadian population?


I have the nagging feeling that what you wrote here might possibly have some meaning, if you knew how to spell.

.


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which must be much hire than the Canadian population?
> 
> 
> 
> I have the nagging feeling that what you wrote here might possibly have some meaning, if you knew how to spell.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So I want to hire stupid Canadians

Applications are available at the border

You would be a perfect fit!

Repeat after me.....

Would you like to supersize that?


----------



## PMZ

The crimes that GZ convicted TM of,  that led to his execution were summarized by George as ''them'' too often getting away with '' it''.  George emphatically ended that reign of terror.

The self defense excuse that he offered was not supported by any real injuries. 

At worst,  apparently,  it was TM holding him down to avoid getting shot. 

But in FL that's called standing your ground.


----------



## Alter2Ego

Katzndogz said:


> *Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.*   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.





freedombecki said:


> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that *he was not the aggressor*.





Oldstyle said:


> There's very little question that Trayvon Martin gave George Zimmerman a beating before Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him.  *It was about as clear cut a case of self defense as I've ever seen* yet Martin's actions have been excused because he was "followed".  I'm sorry but since when did following someone at a distance after calling the Police to report suspicious activity become an excuse for assault & battery?


*ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:*
The above bigoted comments are from just the first page of this thread.  Need I say more?  Do you understand now why Zimmerman's racial profiling of an unarmed black youth--leading to him actively pursuing and then executing the unarmed youth, after which Zimmerman got off scott free--is such an outrage to Black people? 


Zimmerman's remark to the 911 operator was that an African American kid who appeared about 18 years old was looking like hes up to no good. That's called racial profiling. 


Zimmerman then got out of his car and pursued the juvenile. Zimmerman said under his breath: "They always get away." Assigning the word "they" in negative undertones to an entire ethnic group is called racial profiling. Below is a weblink as well as a video of the 911 phone call. Listen for the following statements.


Zimmerman to Operator: *"He's running."*

911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Are you following him?"* 

Zimmerman to Operator: *"Yeah."*

911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Okay, we don't need you to do that. Okay?"*

Raw: 911 call Zimmerman made to Sanford police (Explicit) | www.wftv.com



Trayvon phoned his girlfriend and informed her that he was being pursued by a "Cracker" aka Whitie. By then, the youth was in a fight or flight situation. He was running, trying to get away, with Zimmerman in hot pursuit. 


*QUESTION to Katzndogz, freedombecki, and Oldstyle:*  What would you have done if you were Trayvon and you found yourself being pursued by a complete stranger for reasons unknown?


The forum would like to know.




*Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin*

Prosecutor Richard Mantei focused on the words used in that call, particularly when Noffke asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.

Why did you ask  'Are you following him?' the prosecutor asked Noffke.

It sounded like movement and wind coming through the phone, after  [Zimmerman] stated the subject was running, Noffke said.

How come you didnt  say dont follow'? the prosecutor asked him.

Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. Were directly liable if we give a direct order, he said. We always try to give general basic  not commands, just suggestions.

Under cross-examination, Noffke told defense attorney Mark OMara, Its best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation, a comment that might bolster prosecution allegations that the incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle.
Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin - latimes.com


----------



## beagle9

PMZ said:


> Gee,  you'd think that all of that trauma would leave some marks behind.  Not to mention that you've heard only half of the story.  You seem desperate to believe that half even though,  with the other witness dead,  who's to know if any of it is true.
> 
> Reasonable doubt is a very low bar.


You are glad that the witness is dead it seems now aren't you ?  I mean I say this because it gives you the ability to just continue to opine and fantasize and/or inject your poison on this thread until you brow beat everyone to death all by yourself with it, and this by your knowing that the witness is dead in which gives you the ability to just sling it, and sling it, and to just sling it some more as based on that fact alone, in which you love to resort to just so you can take off in what ever direction next that you feel it will allow you to go ?


----------



## PMZ

I belief that we all have a right to life once we are able to sustain that life.  GZ denied TM of all of his rights. There may be circumstances that justify such actions but none were present here.   

TM was doing nothing that each of us haven't done thousands of times.  Yet GZ decided that he should not be allowed to be where he was. And he took action.  With a gun. 

That is one person imposing fatal consequences on another for no reason other than he could. 

If TM was armed and ended GZ's life,  you'd be up in arms as would I.  I believe that TM deserves the same outrage.


----------



## BobPlumb

I have an idea.  If you thank GZ is guilty of murder just post "Guilty".  If you agree with the verdict of the jury then post "Not Guilty".  No need at this point to give any reason for your opinion because the other side doesn't give a rats ass anyway.


----------



## PMZ

[MENTION][/MENTION]





BobPlumb said:


> I have an idea.  If you thank GZ is guilty of murder just post "Guilty".  If agree with the verdict of the jury then post "Not Guilty".  No need at this point to give any reason for your opinion because the other side doesn't give a rats ass anyway.



If I thought that the only issue was the quality of the jury's decision, I might be tempted to play. However I don't. I think that it goes much beyond that. It goes to what this country has become. The right to life, when we can individually sustain it, is the foundation to all rights. Depriving people of all of their rights is a monumental decision to be taken with grave consideration. 

To judge the right to stand your ground as more important than all human rights is, IMO, bizarre. We left there hundreds of years ago. To return is the antithesis of progress.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Alter2Ego said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.*   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that *he was not the aggressor*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's very little question that Trayvon Martin gave George Zimmerman a beating before Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him.  *It was about as clear cut a case of self defense as I've ever seen* yet Martin's actions have been excused because he was "followed".  I'm sorry but since when did following someone at a distance after calling the Police to report suspicious activity become an excuse for assault & battery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:*
> The above bigoted comments are from just the first page of this thread.  Need I say more?  Do you understand now why Zimmerman's racial profiling of an unarmed black youth--leading to him actively pursuing and then executing the unarmed youth, after which Zimmerman got off scott free--is such an outrage to Black people?
> 
> 
> Zimmerman's remark to the 911 operator was that an African American kid who appeared about 18 years old was looking like hes up to no good. That's called racial profiling.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman then got out of his car and pursued the juvenile. Zimmerman said under his breath: "They always get away." Assigning the word "they" in negative undertones to an entire ethnic group is called racial profiling. Below is a weblink as well as a video of the 911 phone call. Listen for the following statements.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"He's running."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Are you following him?"*
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"Yeah."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Okay, we don't need you to do that. Okay?"*
> 
> Raw: 911 call Zimmerman made to Sanford police (Explicit) | www.wftv.com
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk]Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Trayvon phoned his girlfriend and informed her that he was being pursued by a "Cracker" aka Whitie. By then, the youth was in a fight or flight situation. He was running, trying to get away, with Zimmerman in hot pursuit.
> 
> 
> *QUESTION to Katzndogz, freedombecki, and Oldstyle:*  What would you have done if you were Trayvon and you found yourself being pursued by a complete stranger for reasons unknown?
> 
> 
> The forum would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin*
> 
> Prosecutor Richard Mantei focused on the words used in that call, particularly when Noffke asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.
> 
> Why did you ask  'Are you following him?' the prosecutor asked Noffke.
> 
> It sounded like movement and wind coming through the phone, after  [Zimmerman] stated the subject was running, Noffke said.
> 
> How come you didnt  say dont follow'? the prosecutor asked him.
> 
> Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. Were directly liable if we give a direct order, he said. We always try to give general basic  not commands, just suggestions.
> 
> Under cross-examination, Noffke told defense attorney Mark OMara, Its best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation, a comment that might bolster prosecution allegations that the incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle.
> Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin - latimes.com
Click to expand...


the jury didnt see it that way


----------



## PMZ

jon_berzerk said:


> Alter2Ego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.*   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's very little question that Trayvon Martin gave George Zimmerman a beating before Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him.  *It was about as clear cut a case of self defense as I've ever seen* yet Martin's actions have been excused because he was "followed".  I'm sorry but since when did following someone at a distance after calling the Police to report suspicious activity become an excuse for assault & battery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:*
> The above bigoted comments are from just the first page of this thread.  Need I say more?  Do you understand now why Zimmerman's racial profiling of an unarmed black youth--leading to him actively pursuing and then executing the unarmed youth, after which Zimmerman got off scott free--is such an outrage to Black people?
> 
> 
> Zimmerman's remark to the 911 operator was that an African American kid who appeared about 18 years old was looking like hes up to no good. That's called racial profiling.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman then got out of his car and pursued the juvenile. Zimmerman said under his breath: "They always get away." Assigning the word "they" in negative undertones to an entire ethnic group is called racial profiling. Below is a weblink as well as a video of the 911 phone call. Listen for the following statements.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"He's running."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Are you following him?"*
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"Yeah."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Okay, we don't need you to do that. Okay?"*
> 
> Raw: 911 call Zimmerman made to Sanford police (Explicit) | www.wftv.com
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk]Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Trayvon phoned his girlfriend and informed her that he was being pursued by a "Cracker" aka Whitie. By then, the youth was in a fight or flight situation. He was running, trying to get away, with Zimmerman in hot pursuit.
> 
> 
> *QUESTION to Katzndogz, freedombecki, and Oldstyle:*  What would you have done if you were Trayvon and you found yourself being pursued by a complete stranger for reasons unknown?
> 
> 
> The forum would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin*
> 
> Prosecutor Richard Mantei focused on the words used in that call, particularly when Noffke asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.
> 
> Why did you ask  'Are you following him?' the prosecutor asked Noffke.
> 
> It sounded like movement and wind coming through the phone, after  [Zimmerman] stated the subject was running, Noffke said.
> 
> How come you didnt  say dont follow'? the prosecutor asked him.
> 
> Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. Were directly liable if we give a direct order, he said. We always try to give general basic  not commands, just suggestions.
> 
> Under cross-examination, Noffke told defense attorney Mark OMara, Its best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation, a comment that might bolster prosecution allegations that the incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle.
> Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the jury didnt see it that way
Click to expand...


You're right. But many of us do. 

Which specific point in that post do you disagree with?


----------



## jon_berzerk

PMZ said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alter2Ego said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:*
> The above bigoted comments are from just the first page of this thread.  Need I say more?  Do you understand now why Zimmerman's racial profiling of an unarmed black youth--leading to him actively pursuing and then executing the unarmed youth, after which Zimmerman got off scott free--is such an outrage to Black people?
> 
> 
> Zimmerman's remark to the 911 operator was that an African American kid who appeared about 18 years old was looking like hes up to no good. That's called racial profiling.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman then got out of his car and pursued the juvenile. Zimmerman said under his breath: "They always get away." Assigning the word "they" in negative undertones to an entire ethnic group is called racial profiling. Below is a weblink as well as a video of the 911 phone call. Listen for the following statements.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"He's running."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Are you following him?"*
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"Yeah."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Okay, we don't need you to do that. Okay?"*
> 
> Raw: 911 call Zimmerman made to Sanford police (Explicit) | www.wftv.com
> 
> Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube
> 
> 
> Trayvon phoned his girlfriend and informed her that he was being pursued by a "Cracker" aka Whitie. By then, the youth was in a fight or flight situation. He was running, trying to get away, with Zimmerman in hot pursuit.
> 
> 
> *QUESTION to Katzndogz, freedombecki, and Oldstyle:*  What would you have done if you were Trayvon and you found yourself being pursued by a complete stranger for reasons unknown?
> 
> 
> The forum would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin*
> 
> Prosecutor Richard Mantei focused on the words used in that call, particularly when Noffke asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.
> 
> Why did you ask  'Are you following him?' the prosecutor asked Noffke.
> 
> It sounded like movement and wind coming through the phone, after  [Zimmerman] stated the subject was running, Noffke said.
> 
> How come you didnt  say dont follow'? the prosecutor asked him.
> 
> Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. Were directly liable if we give a direct order, he said. We always try to give general basic  not commands, just suggestions.
> 
> Under cross-examination, Noffke told defense attorney Mark OMara, Its best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation, a comment that might bolster prosecution allegations that the incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle.
> Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jury didnt see it that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. But many of us do.
> 
> Which specific point in that post do you disagree with?
Click to expand...


the jury did not see it as racial profiling


----------



## testarosa

jon_berzerk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jury didnt see it that way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. But many of us do.
> 
> Which specific point in that post do you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the jury did not see it as racial profiling
Click to expand...


the jury found him not guilty.  

the FBI didn't see it as racial profiling either


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PMZ said:


> The crimes that GZ convicted TM of,  that led to his execution were summarized by George as ''them'' too often getting away with '' it''.  George emphatically ended that reign of terror.
> 
> The self defense excuse that he offered was not supported by any real injuries.
> 
> At worst,  apparently,  it was TM holding him down to avoid getting shot.
> 
> But in FL that's called standing your ground.



'Them' is gang members and 'it' is stealing. And it turns out that GZ was right on the money. But, you keep crying for the shameless hood rats who attack innocent men.


----------



## beagle9

PMZ - You phrase your words as if Zimmerman did this killing not in self defense, but more like in pre-meditated cold blooded murder or something to that affect, but that was not the case nor was it proven to be the case, so why do you keep trying these sorts of instigating tactics as based on your insinuating assertions of the matter like you keep trying to do here ?


----------



## PMZ

TheGreatGatsby said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crimes that GZ convicted TM of,  that led to his execution were summarized by George as ''them'' too often getting away with '' it''.  George emphatically ended that reign of terror.
> 
> The self defense excuse that he offered was not supported by any real injuries.
> 
> At worst,  apparently,  it was TM holding him down to avoid getting shot.
> 
> But in FL that's called standing your ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Them' is gang members and 'it' is stealing. And it turns out that GZ was right on the money. But, you keep crying for the shameless hood rats who attack innocent men.
Click to expand...


What gang was TM a member of and what did he steal that night?


----------



## Pop23

Bottom line

Zimmerman will not be charged with civil rights violations and if a wrongful death suit is brought, Zimmerman will win.


----------



## PMZ

Another fortune teller.


----------



## Pop23

It's a prediction, but probably a correct one

But then again, maybe your right, you can read minds and time travel


----------



## PMZ

You're the one fortune telling.


----------



## jon_berzerk

testarosa said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. But many of us do.
> 
> Which specific point in that post do you disagree with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jury did not see it as racial profiling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the jury found him not guilty.
> 
> the FBI didn't see it as racial profiling either
Click to expand...


which is going to make it rather hard 

for a successful civil lawsuit


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PMZ said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crimes that GZ convicted TM of,  that led to his execution were summarized by George as ''them'' too often getting away with '' it''.  George emphatically ended that reign of terror.
> 
> The self defense excuse that he offered was not supported by any real injuries.
> 
> At worst,  apparently,  it was TM holding him down to avoid getting shot.
> 
> But in FL that's called standing your ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Them' is gang members and 'it' is stealing. And it turns out that GZ was right on the money. But, you keep crying for the shameless hood rats who attack innocent men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gang was TM a member of and what did he steal that night?
Click to expand...


His father is/was a Crip. Trayvon may or may not have been in part of gang. He certainly lived the thug life though. And he certainly stole plenty of shit. That has all been documented. We don't need to make this a matter of semantics.


----------



## Zona

TheGreatGatsby said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Them' is gang members and 'it' is stealing. And it turns out that GZ was right on the money. But, you keep crying for the shameless hood rats who attack innocent men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gang was TM a member of and what did he steal that night?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His father is/was a Crip. Trayvon may or may not have been in part of gang. He certainly lived the thug life though. And he certainly stole plenty of shit. That has all been documented. We don't need to make this a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...


Stole.plenty of shit?  Thug life?  Do you have ANY proof of him stealing 'plenty of shit"?  What thug life? I can show you posts.of whites in almost identical pics like Martin's.  Do you even know what a 'thug' life is?


----------



## PMZ

You're right.  Semantics just deals with the meaning of words.  We should  be able to use whatever words we want. 

An innocent the boy is dead.  But only a black boy. . Many of his color are criminal.  Many of ''ours'' are not.  There you go.  Black and white.  Carrying a gun to an argument will teach those punks a lesson.  Screw with whites and die.  The way that God intends.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Zona said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gang was TM a member of and what did he steal that night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His father is/was a Crip. Trayvon may or may not have been in part of gang. He certainly lived the thug life though. And he certainly stole plenty of shit. That has all been documented. We don't need to make this a matter of semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stole.plenty of shit?  Thug life?  Do you have ANY proof of him stealing 'plenty of shit"?  What thug life? I can show you posts.of whites in almost identical pics like Martin's.  Do you even know what a 'thug' life is?
Click to expand...


Save your phony indignation. We both know the deal. We know that this kid was getting into all kinds of trouble and doing all kinds of bad things. And I most certainly don't need an idiot like you asking me if I know what a 'thug' life is.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PMZ said:


> You're right.  Semantics just deals with the meaning of words.  We should  be able to use whatever words we want.
> 
> An innocent the boy is dead.  But only a black boy. . Many of his color are criminal.  Many of ''ours'' are not.  There you go.  Black and white.  Carrying a gun to an argument will teach those punks a lesson.  Screw with whites and die.  The way that God intends.



LOL. Please put the last two sentences of your post in your sig line , so that people will know that you're a total nitwit upfront.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Tray attacked Zim. So Zim shot him. I see nothing wrong with that. So what's the prob?


----------



## PMZ

Why was he attacked? Random victim?


----------



## Bumberclyde

PMZ said:


> Why was he attacked? Random victim?



From what i gathered, he attacked someone who was following him, instead of what a normal person might do, like... RUN AWAY!!!

So Tray was either a) asking for it. or b) just really, really stupid. Which is it?


----------



## Meathead

Bumberclyde said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was he attacked? Random victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what i gathered, he attacked someone who was following him, instead of what a normal person might do, like... RUN AWAY!!!
> 
> So Tray was either a) asking for it. or b) just really, really stupid. Which is it?
Click to expand...

They are not mutually exclusive, so both.


----------



## PMZ

I guess that we'll never know the degree of provocation.  I see that you'd like to assume that it was little.  That's one possibility.


----------



## numan

PMZ said:


> To judge the right to stand your ground as more important than all human rights is, IMO, bizarre. We left there hundreds of years ago. To return is the antithesis of progress.


The concept of "human rights" is still an unfamiliar notion in the United States of Amnesia.

.


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> To judge the right to stand your ground as more important than all human rights is, IMO, bizarre. We left there hundreds of years ago. To return is the antithesis of progress.
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of "human rights" is still an unfamiliar notion in the United States of Amnesia.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Or, until you need to defend YOURSELF, then it will be completely justified, won't it?


----------



## numan

Pop23 said:


> Bottom line
> 
> Zimmerman will not be charged with civil rights violations and if a wrongful death suit is brought, Zimmerman will win.


And Evil will triumph -- as it has so often in the USA, ever since the Insurrectionary Terrorists persuaded the French to attack and defeat the legitimate government.

.


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line
> 
> Zimmerman will not be charged with civil rights violations and if a wrongful death suit is brought, Zimmerman will win.
> 
> 
> 
> And Evil will triumph -- as it has so often in the USA, ever since the Insurrectionary Terrorists persuaded the French to attack and defeat the legitimate government.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Numan, step up to the plate.  You and your cronies call the Martins, tell them you will pay the legal fees they would have to pursue the case, and guarantee them you will pay any and all damages that they may face should they lose.

After that you can make all the absurd statement you wish, until then, your just blowing smoke.

Which is it?


----------



## testarosa

jon_berzerk said:


> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jury did not see it as racial profiling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jury found him not guilty.
> 
> the FBI didn't see it as racial profiling either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which is going to make it rather hard
> 
> for a successful civil lawsuit
Click to expand...


or a civil suit at. all.

;-)


----------



## PaulS1950

Yep! that poor innocent boy broke that racist's nose and beat him while sitting on top of him, after following him back to his car be cause he was afraid of being followed while walking in the wet grass when it was raining and stopping to look into homes because he was in a hurry to get home to eat his skittles and drink his ice tea. Only it wasn't ice tea it was a drink that when mixed with skittles and Robitussin cough syrup made a drink called "Lean" that caused a high, paranoia, and liver damage just like what was found during his autopsy. 

Since we all know that Zimmerman, who fought the system for a homeless black man, helped teach young black children, and was a friend to most of the racially varied tenants of the complex was nothing but a cold blooded racial killer who killed a poor black boy for no reason after chasing him down just because he was black. 

The above seems to be the thought process of those who consider Zimmerman a murderer in spite of all the evidence presented throughout the trial to the contrary. There were multiple witnesses that testified, there was a tremendous amount of evidence and all of it supported Zimmerman's account which they believe was a lie made up to cover the murder of Martin. REALLY?


----------



## Wake

Now that the furor seems to be dying down, we can only hope that peace can return to America. With any luck more and more people will see that race-mongerers like Sharpton whip people up into a frenzy with half-truths and downright lies. We need a man like MLK Jr. who, I think, has more credibility than these people who deliberately stir the pot. Can't America be allowed to heal, please?


----------



## numan

Wake said:


> Can't America be allowed to heal, please?


No, of course not !!

Keeping Americans constantly whipped up into frenzies of irrational hysteria is an essential part of keeping the proles under the domination of their evil rulers.

.


----------



## squeeze berry

numan said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't America be allowed to heal, please?
> 
> 
> 
> No, of course not !!
> 
> Keeping Americans constantly whipped up into frenzies of irrational hysteria is an essential part of keeping the proles under the domination of their evil rulers.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


get a job


----------



## drivebymedia

The  Emmett Till killing furor eventually dissipated, but it is etched in the soul of America as a dying breath of Jim Crow.

Now, America is aware that Jim Crow has a few breaths left in it.


----------



## Gadawg73

drivebymedia said:


> The  Emmett Till killing furor eventually dissipated, but it is etched in the soul of America as a dying breath of Jim Crow.
> 
> Now, America is aware that Jim Crow has a few breaths left in it.



This case had nothing to do with Jim Crow or Emmett Till.
this case was a guy that had his nose broken and his head was getting bashed in the concrete and he defended himself.
Your local community college has history classes on Jim Crow and the Emmett Till case.


----------



## Gadawg73

Burglaries are way down in that zone where Zimmerman lived.


----------



## Pop23

drivebymedia said:


> The  Emmett Till killing furor eventually dissipated, but it is etched in the soul of America as a dying breath of Jim Crow.
> 
> Now, America is aware that Jim Crow has a few breaths left in it.



Clue me in, who was Hispanic in the above?

Nobody?

Oh Ok

Why would you want to post something that proves you are stupid?


----------



## jon_berzerk

testarosa said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jury found him not guilty.
> 
> the FBI didn't see it as racial profiling either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is going to make it rather hard
> 
> for a successful civil lawsuit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or a civil suit at. all.
> 
> ;-)
Click to expand...


true 

it isnt like omara hasnt warned them


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

GZ driving through Texas? I guess the dude just needed to get out!


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Burglaries are way down in that zone where Zimmerman lived.



You start killing innocent people and everybody stays home. What a life.  Everybody afraid to go out.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

drivebymedia said:


> The  Emmett Till killing furor eventually dissipated, but it is etched in the soul of America as a dying breath of Jim Crow.
> 
> Now, America is aware that Jim Crow has a few breaths left in it.



Why bitch about something that happened in 1955 and the (democratically created) Jim Crow law that ended in 1954?


----------



## Bumberclyde

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burglaries are way down in that zone where Zimmerman lived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start killing innocent people and everybody stays home. What a life.  Everybody afraid to go out.
Click to expand...


You're mixed up, burglaries are down, doesn't mean people are at home, there's no connection. In fact, if burglaries are down, people would be more likely to go out somewhere, wouldn't they?


----------



## numan

PMZ said:


> You start killing innocent people and everybody stays home. What a life.  Everybody afraid to go out.


And the disastrous aftermath of the Terrorist Insurrection of 1776 continues to play out, ever more hellishly.

Where will it finally end?

.


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You start killing innocent people and everybody stays home. What a life.  Everybody afraid to go out.
> 
> 
> 
> And the disastrous aftermath of the Terrorist Insurrection of 1776 continues to play out, ever more hellishly.
> 
> Where will it finally end?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Possibly with people discussing issues honestly

I invite you to start doing so

Peace


----------



## testarosa

jon_berzerk said:


> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is going to make it rather hard
> 
> for a successful civil lawsuit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or a civil suit at. all.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true
> 
> it isnt like omara hasnt warned them
Click to expand...


Are they smart enough

To heed the warning.

Seems Jesse isn't and is

Sticking his foot in it

Pretty badly.

There are consequences

For stupidity


----------



## numan

Pop23 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You start killing innocent people and everybody stays home. What a life.  Everybody afraid to go out.
> 
> 
> 
> And the disastrous aftermath of the Terrorist Insurrection of 1776 continues to play out, ever more hellishly.
> 
> Where will it finally end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Possibly with people discussing issues honestly
Click to expand...

Don't be absurd!!

"discussing issues honestly" -- Americans? -- Ridiculous!!

It will never happen as long as America remains the "HOMELAND" of Lies and Malarkey --

or as President Warren G. Harding described politics in America -- "BLOVIATION"!!

Honesty and truth are utterly alien to the minds of most Americans --

Exhibit A: the words of -- but then, this is the Clean Debate Zone!!
.


----------



## Oldstyle

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the disastrous aftermath of the Terrorist Insurrection of 1776 continues to play out, ever more hellishly.
> 
> Where will it finally end?
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly with people discussing issues honestly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be absurd!!
> 
> "discussing issues honestly" -- Americans? -- Ridiculous!!
> 
> It will never happen as long as America remains the "HOMELAND" of Lies and Malarkey --
> 
> or as President Warren G. Harding described politics in America -- "BLOVIATION"!!
> 
> Honesty and truth are utterly alien to the minds of most Americans --
> 
> Exhibit A: the words of -- but then, this is the Clean Debate Zone!!
> .
Click to expand...


Gee, someone seems to have an "issue" with America!  "Honesty and truth are utterly alien to the minds of most Americans"?  Really?  It would appear that you let your utter hatred of Americans out with utterly ridiculous statements like that one.  Spend a lot of time in America, have you?  Know a lot of us personally?

I hate to break this to you, Numan...but "malarkey" is pretty much your stock in trade on this board.  You don't discuss issues in an honest manner.  You have your beliefs and you slant whatever you post to reflect those beliefs...something that many people here do.  What makes you such a douche is that you do it while pretending to be above such behavior.


----------



## Oldstyle

Someone with your intellectual capabilities using Stephen Hawking as an avatar is the epitome of "wishful thinking".  The only thing the two of you have in common is that each of you is obviously handicapped.  Your handicap however isn't physical...it's your arrogance.


----------



## Wake

I value all of your opinions, because you are the people who care enough to shape the future. 

What I humbly ask, though, is that you not attack each other personally in this thread, please.


----------



## numan

Oldstyle said:


> Gee, someone seems to have an "issue" with America!  "Honesty and truth are utterly alien to the minds of most Americans"?  Really?  It would appear that you let your utter hatred of Americans out with utterly ridiculous statements like that one.  Spend a lot of time in America, have you?  Know a lot of us personally?


"Magic words of, 'Poof-poof, Piffle!'", Mr. Antiquated.

I was born and raised in one of the major centers of Lying in the United States -- Los Angeles.

I certainly do have an issue with America -- unlike the deluded rest of you, I know quite well that America has taken a very evil path which will result in disaster both for Americans and others.

I do not regard Americans as congenitally or uniquely stupid and deluded -- their pre-eminence in these qualities in the modern world is due to the simple fact that US wealth and power make Americans the most profitable to brainwash and exploit by the most evil elements of modern society.

Americans were never a particularly admirable lot, but compared to the exceedingly low level of mind and character of most modern Americans, the Americans before World War II look like heroes and sages.

.


----------



## Oldstyle

Alter2Ego said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.*   This is not important except in one respect.  Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others?   The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Zimmerman _is_ innocent. The reason is that the jury ruled self-defense, which is not a crime. The initial police report showed that his wounds were consistent with what Zimmerman told police after the fact, which showed that *he was not the aggressor*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's very little question that Trayvon Martin gave George Zimmerman a beating before Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him.  *It was about as clear cut a case of self defense as I've ever seen* yet Martin's actions have been excused because he was "followed".  I'm sorry but since when did following someone at a distance after calling the Police to report suspicious activity become an excuse for assault & battery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:*
> The above bigoted comments are from just the first page of this thread.  Need I say more?  Do you understand now why Zimmerman's racial profiling of an unarmed black youth--leading to him actively pursuing and then executing the unarmed youth, after which Zimmerman got off scott free--is such an outrage to Black people?
> 
> 
> Zimmerman's remark to the 911 operator was that an African American kid who appeared about 18 years old was looking &#8220;like he&#8217;s up to no good.&#8221; That's called racial profiling.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman then got out of his car and pursued the juvenile. Zimmerman said under his breath: "They always get away." Assigning the word "they" in negative undertones to an entire ethnic group is called racial profiling. Below is a weblink as well as a video of the 911 phone call. Listen for the following statements.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"He's running."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Are you following him?"*
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"Yeah."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Okay, we don't need you to do that. Okay?"*
> 
> Raw: 911 call Zimmerman made to Sanford police (Explicit) | www.wftv.com
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk]Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Trayvon phoned his girlfriend and informed her that he was being pursued by a "Cracker" aka Whitie. By then, the youth was in a fight or flight situation. He was running, trying to get away, with Zimmerman in hot pursuit.
> 
> 
> *QUESTION to Katzndogz, freedombecki, and Oldstyle:*  What would you have done if you were Trayvon and you found yourself being pursued by a complete stranger for reasons unknown?
> 
> 
> The forum would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin*
> 
> Prosecutor Richard Mantei focused on the words used in that call, particularly when Noffke asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.
> 
> &#8220;Why did you ask &#8230; 'Are you following him?'&#8221; the prosecutor asked Noffke.
> 
> &#8220;It sounded like movement and wind coming through the phone, after  [Zimmerman] stated the subject was running,&#8221; Noffke said.
> 
> &#8220;How come you didn&#8217;t &#8230; say &#8216;don&#8217;t follow'?&#8221; the prosecutor asked him.
> 
> Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. &#8220;We&#8217;re directly liable if we give a direct order,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We always try to give general basic &#8230; not commands, just suggestions.&#8221;
> 
> Under cross-examination, Noffke told defense attorney Mark O&#8217;Mara, &#8220;It&#8217;s best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation,&#8221; a comment that might bolster prosecution allegations that the incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle.
> Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin - latimes.com
Click to expand...


Did you actually watch the trial?  You make statements that lead me to believe that you've made your mind up about this case based on the narrative that was put out by the Martin families attorney's leading up to the case...a narrative that the main stream media chose to go with rather than examining who these two people REALLY were and what the *evidence * indicated happened that night.

Let's take the Zimmerman phone call...

So much has been made that the dispatcher told George Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that."  Somehow THAT indicates to you that Zimmerman was breaking the law in some way.  Quite frankly that's an absurd conclusion and I'll tell you why.

First of all the reason that Zimmerman may have gotten OUT of his SUV and attempted to follow Trayvon Martin is that same dispatcher had just asked him if he could see which way the suspicious teenager had run.  It's at THAT point that Zimmerman exits his truck and tries to follow Martin.  Is Zimmerman simply trying to do what the dispatcher is asking?  

Secondly, what is Zimmerman's response when the dispatcher realizes that he may be out of his vehicle and trying to run after the fleeing teen?  The dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that." and Zimmerman responds with "OK".  Not "He's getting away!"  Not "I'm tired of these kids getting away!"  No, Zimmerman replies "OK".  Then he starts walking back to his SUV while trying to figure out where he's going to meet the Police.

Thirdly, the admonition from the dispatcher isn't because he feels that Zimmerman is breaking any laws.  The dispatcher said what he did out of concern for Zimmerman's safety because (and this is crucial!) the Police are scared to death of being liable if something happens to someone who is following their instructions.

Now back to your question about what "I" would do if I were pursued by a stranger at night.  First of all what I would NEVER do...is leave a safe area and return to a dangerous one.  I don't think ANY rationale person would do that...yet that's EXACTLY what Trayvon Martin DID!  When he ran from Zimmerman he was in the area of the townhouse he was staying at when Rachel Jenteal called him back...breathing hard from running away.  That townhouse is over 120 yards from where the fight took place...that townhouse is over 120 yards away from the "creepy assed Cracker" that was following Trayvon!  Yet somehow, Martin managed to end up Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the T of those sidewalks confronting George Zimmerman!  So explain how that happens, Alter if Martin doesn't MAKE it happen?


----------



## Oldstyle

Wake said:


> I value all of your opinions, because you are the people who care enough to shape the future.
> 
> What I humbly ask, though, is that you not attack each other personally in this thread, please.



I could care less if Numan attacks "me" personally.  If he disagrees with my points or thinks I'm an idiot then he should feel free to say so.  What annoys me is that Numan has chosen the easy way out...the intellectually lazy way out...by attacking America as a whole as being terrorists and liars.  He is quite frankly...a pompous asshole.


----------



## Wake

Oldstyle said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I value all of your opinions, because you are the people who care enough to shape the future.
> 
> What I humbly ask, though, is that you not attack each other personally in this thread, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less if Numan attacks "me" personally.  If he disagrees with my points or thinks I'm an idiot then he should feel free to say so.  What annoys me is that Numan has chosen the easy way out...the intellectually lazy way out...by attacking America as a whole as being terrorists and liars.  He is quite frankly...a pompous asshole.
Click to expand...


While I do like both of you, there is something we can do about this. Numan stated that Americans were never a particularly admirable lot. You can chip away at that piece he put on the board by posting each and every exceptional American throughout history, from George Washington Carver to John F. Kennedy. When he makes broad assertions like that, he makes himself vulnerable because now you can break down that faulty mental construct of his as much as you want, which would make it even harder for him to persuade others to believe his argument over yours. Give him a challenge by really putting him through his paces on logic and reason, making sure to catch him if/when he makes any of the various logical fallacies out there. Doing so gives your own positions more weight. Also, by not giving in and attacking him personally you show to everyone else that you, Mr. Oldstyle, has the cooler head. That, too, helps anyone in debate.

You can make more of an impact by thoroughly destroying arguments, instead of attacking a person's character.


----------



## Oldstyle

Someone making the statement that Americans were not exceptional has already proven themselves to be ignorant of history.  While America is becoming less and less exceptional with each passing year because of our dependence on a cradle to the grave Nanny State, it is still head and shoulders above most of the rest of the world.

Trying to educate someone like Numan about that however would be a total waste of time.  He'll simply reply that I'm an American "liar".  That's his stock reply to all viewpoints he has no counter to.


----------



## Wake

Oldstyle said:


> Someone making the statement that Americans were not exceptional has already proven themselves to be ignorant of history.  While America is becoming less and less exceptional with each passing year because of our dependence on a cradle to the grave Nanny State, it is still head and shoulders above most of the rest of the world.
> 
> Trying to educate someone like Numan about that however would be a total waste of time.  He'll simply reply that I'm an American "liar".  That's his stock reply to all viewpoints he has no counter to.



No, I give Numan the benefit of the doubt, because I believe in him as well as you. I'll agree with you that America does seem to be becoming less exceptional because of the cradle-to-the-grave governmental effect. Maybe Numan would open his ears up a bit more to you (general you) if he wasn't getting called names or having his own ideas or personal affects ridiculed. It takes at least two to build a bridge (I think, considering the latest technology). 

There is a style and a way to winning people over. It must be genuine, and it takes an effort on your part to be nice to people. I'd really like to see you two hash it out on arguments and ideas alone, so that we can try to find out exactly what the ideological "cruxes" are that you two aren't able to agree on. Maybe we can work that out?


----------



## Pop23

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the disastrous aftermath of the Terrorist Insurrection of 1776 continues to play out, ever more hellishly.
> 
> Where will it finally end?
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly with people discussing issues honestly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be absurd!!
> 
> "discussing issues honestly" -- Americans? -- Ridiculous!!
> 
> It will never happen as long as America remains the "HOMELAND" of Lies and Malarkey --
> 
> or as President Warren G. Harding described politics in America -- "BLOVIATION"!!
> 
> Honesty and truth are utterly alien to the minds of most Americans --
> 
> Exhibit A: the words of -- but then, this is the Clean Debate Zone!!
> .
Click to expand...


Are you the pot or the kettle?


----------



## PMZ

Wake said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone making the statement that Americans were not exceptional has already proven themselves to be ignorant of history.  While America is becoming less and less exceptional with each passing year because of our dependence on a cradle to the grave Nanny State, it is still head and shoulders above most of the rest of the world.
> 
> Trying to educate someone like Numan about that however would be a total waste of time.  He'll simply reply that I'm an American "liar".  That's his stock reply to all viewpoints he has no counter to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I give Numan the benefit of the doubt, because I believe in him as well as you. I'll agree with you that America does seem to be becoming less exceptional because of the cradle-to-the-grave governmental effect. Maybe Numan would open his ears up a bit more to you (general you) if he wasn't getting called names or having his own ideas or personal affects ridiculed. It takes at least two to build a bridge (I think, considering the latest technology).
> 
> There is a style and a way to winning people over. It must be genuine, and it takes an effort on your part to be nice to people. I'd really like to see you two hash it out on arguments and ideas alone, so that we can try to find out exactly what the ideological "cruxes" are that you two aren't able to agree on. Maybe we can work that out?
Click to expand...



Taking credit for an exceptional America. How's that for extremism.


----------



## PMZ

Exceptional America is easy to plot. 

The trajectory of almost every measure of progress under Clinton, Bush, and Obama. 

Another measure of the pride in America is the attitude towards America when our news came from Morrow, Swazy, Cronkite, the NYTimes, main stream media in general vs the constant America bashing of Fox News, Rush and his cronies, and right wing media sites, and, yes, the GOP. 

The assault on American exceptionalism is almost an entirely right wing attack on everything American. Including the right to walk the street unarmed.


----------



## jon_berzerk

testarosa said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> or a civil suit at. all.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true
> 
> it isnt like omara hasnt warned them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they smart enough
> 
> To heed the warning.
> 
> Seems Jesse isn't and is
> 
> Sticking his foot in it
> 
> Pretty badly.
> 
> There are consequences
> 
> For stupidity
Click to expand...


exactly 

you have the hang of it


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PMZ said:


> Exceptional America is easy to plot.
> 
> The trajectory of almost every measure of progress under Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
> 
> Another measure of the pride in America is the attitude towards America when our news came from Morrow, Swazy, Cronkite, the NYTimes, main stream media in general vs the constant America bashing of Fox News, Rush and his cronies, and right wing media sites, and, yes, the GOP.
> 
> The assault on American exceptionalism is almost an entirely right wing attack on everything American. Including the right to walk the street unarmed.



How are we exceptional? The rest the world owns us and poverty is at all-time highs? I guess you bought the propaganda of your lords and masters.


----------



## numan

numan said:
			
		

> I do not regard Americans as congenitally or uniquely stupid and deluded -- their pre-eminence in these qualities in the modern world is due to the simple fact that US wealth and power make Americans the most profitable to brainwash and exploit by the most evil elements of modern society.
> 
> Americans were never a particularly admirable lot, but compared to the exceedingly low level of mind and character of most modern Americans, the Americans before World War II look like heroes and sages.





Oldstyle said:


> I could care less if Numan attacks "me" personally.  If he disagrees with my points or thinks I'm an idiot then he should feel free to say so.


If you go over my postings, you will find that at no point did I attack you personally -- with the possible exception of referring to you as "Mr. Antiquated" -- jocosely playing on your web name. If you found that offensive, I apologize. I think it is more correct to say that you attacked me personally, though, of course, this is immaterial to me. If you imagine that I attacked you personally, it can only be because I do not agree with views you hold dear.
Now I do know that many, many Americans regard anything less than fulsome and overblown jingoism as personally insulting and tantamount to treason -- yet I maintain it is not so.



Wake said:


> While I do like both of you, there is something we can do about this. Numan stated that Americans were never a particularly admirable lot. You can chip away at that piece he put on the board by posting each and every exceptional American throughout history, from George Washington Carver to John F. Kennedy. When he makes broad assertions like that, he makes himself vulnerable....


And, on the whole, Wake, I rather like you -- so far. Yet I find a certain illogic in regarding "never a particularly admirable lot" as being especially insulting. After all, it merely means "fair to middling". This may be offensive to the pompous and self-important jingoism which, over the years, has made Uncle Sam such a figure of mockery all over the world, I cannot see that any rational person would be offended by it.

While, ever since the Insurrectionary Terrorists established the Republic so long ago, I have found the political figures of American history a rather depressing lot, I can think of many Americans I admire -- if you will just grant me a little time to recollect. 

I do have a soft spot in my heart for Nathaniel Hawthorne. How could one not warm to an American capable of saying,

*"The United States are suited for many admirable purposes, but not to live in."*

That "are" is a nice period touch, don't you think?

.


----------



## Caroljo

thanatos144 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who shot Trayvon for being a thug? He was shot because he committed a violent act.
> 
> Oh, and there aren't any Zimmerman groupies, only Trayvon Groupies. You don't see us wearing Trayvon T-shirts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a son, he would look like Zimmerman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if the truth be told if Obama had a son at probably look more like Zimmerman
Click to expand...


Maybe not....Moochelle is darker that Barak.  She is full black isn't she?  Lol!  Guess I've never looked into that!  Anyway, his son would have had bigger ears.


----------



## numan

Pop23 said:


> Are you the pot or the kettle?


I think of myself as the snowy linen napkin whom the pots and the kettles call black.

.


----------



## freedombecki

Oldstyle said:


> Alter2Ego said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trayvon Martin was a thug in training.* This is not important except in one respect. Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others? The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's very little question that Trayvon Martin gave George Zimmerman a beating before Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him. *It was about as clear cut a case of self defense as I've ever seen* yet Martin's actions have been excused because he was "followed". I'm sorry but since when did following someone at a distance after calling the Police to report suspicious activity become an excuse for assault & battery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:*
> The above bigoted comments are from just the first page of this thread. Need I say more? Do you understand now why Zimmerman's racial profiling of an unarmed black youth--leading to him actively pursuing and then executing the unarmed youth, after which Zimmerman got off scott free--is such an outrage to Black people?
> 
> 
> Zimmerman's remark to the 911 operator was that an African American kid who appeared about 18 years old was looking like hes up to no good. That's called racial profiling.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman then got out of his car and pursued the juvenile. Zimmerman said under his breath: "They always get away." Assigning the word "they" in negative undertones to an entire ethnic group is called racial profiling. Below is a weblink as well as a video of the 911 phone call. Listen for the following statements.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"He's running."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Are you following him?"*
> 
> Zimmerman to Operator: *"Yeah."*
> 
> 911 Operator to Zimmerman: *"Okay, we don't need you to do that. Okay?"*
> 
> Raw: 911 call Zimmerman made to Sanford police (Explicit) | www.wftv.com
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk"]Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Trayvon phoned his girlfriend and informed her that he was being pursued by a "Cracker" aka Whitie. By then, the youth was in a fight or flight situation. He was running, trying to get away, with Zimmerman in hot pursuit.
> 
> 
> *QUESTION to Katzndogz, freedombecki, and Oldstyle:* What would you have done if you were Trayvon and you found yourself being pursued by a complete stranger for reasons unknown?
> 
> 
> The forum would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin*
> 
> Prosecutor Richard Mantei focused on the words used in that call, particularly when Noffke asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.
> 
> Why did you ask  'Are you following him?' the prosecutor asked Noffke.
> 
> It sounded like movement and wind coming through the phone, after [Zimmerman] stated the subject was running, Noffke said.
> 
> How come you didnt  say dont follow'? the prosecutor asked him.
> 
> Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. Were directly liable if we give a direct order, he said. We always try to give general basic  not commands, just suggestions.
> 
> Under cross-examination, Noffke told defense attorney Mark OMara, Its best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation, a comment that might bolster prosecution allegations that the incident could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle.
> Operator describes George Zimmerman's 911 call on Trayvon Martin - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually watch the trial? You make statements that lead me to believe that you've made your mind up about this case based on the narrative that was put out by the Martin families attorney's leading up to the case...a narrative that the main stream media chose to go with rather than examining who these two people REALLY were and what the *evidence *indicated happened that night.
> 
> Let's take the Zimmerman phone call...
> 
> So much has been made that the dispatcher told George Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that." Somehow THAT indicates to you that Zimmerman was breaking the law in some way. Quite frankly that's an absurd conclusion and I'll tell you why.
> 
> First of all the reason that Zimmerman may have gotten OUT of his SUV and attempted to follow Trayvon Martin is that same dispatcher had just asked him if he could see which way the suspicious teenager had run. It's at THAT point that Zimmerman exits his truck and tries to follow Martin. Is Zimmerman simply trying to do what the dispatcher is asking?
> 
> Secondly, what is Zimmerman's response when the dispatcher realizes that he may be out of his vehicle and trying to run after the fleeing teen? The dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that." and Zimmerman responds with "OK". Not "He's getting away!" Not "I'm tired of these kids getting away!" No, Zimmerman replies "OK". Then he starts walking back to his SUV while trying to figure out where he's going to meet the Police.
> 
> Thirdly, the admonition from the dispatcher isn't because he feels that Zimmerman is breaking any laws. The dispatcher said what he did out of concern for Zimmerman's safety because (and this is crucial!) the Police are scared to death of being liable if something happens to someone who is following their instructions.
> 
> Now back to your question about what "I" would do if I were pursued by a stranger at night. First of all what I would NEVER do...is leave a safe area and return to a dangerous one. I don't think ANY rationale person would do that...yet that's EXACTLY what Trayvon Martin DID! When he ran from Zimmerman he was in the area of the townhouse he was staying at when Rachel Jenteal called him back...breathing hard from running away. That townhouse is over 120 yards from where the fight took place...that townhouse is over 120 yards away from the "creepy assed Cracker" that was following Trayvon! Yet somehow, Martin managed to end up Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the T of those sidewalks confronting George Zimmerman! So explain how that happens, Alter if Martin doesn't MAKE it happen?
Click to expand...

 
What anyone thinks is irrelevant when the jury rules that the killing was in self-defense and not murder in the second degree and not manslaughter, either.

What I do think is that this should never have gone to trial. The threshold was met to declare it a case of self-defense, and nothing else. The cops said it first, the forensics said it agreed, the defense tried to get the case dismissed on self-defense, and finally, the jury agreed it was self-defense. It's over. Talking won't undo the correct verdict of self-defense.


----------



## beagle9

One thing is good, is that we did get a trial, because this was bad until the trial shut the wild west lynching party and/or it's self proclaimed and promoted confused posse down finally. The *WHITE *Hispanic ? Give me a break, this cat was heavily Hispanic in skin color or tone, but they (the race hustlers) wanted him to be white as in whitey (aka creepy cracka), so bad that it wasn't even funny in this case. Oops!


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Exceptional America is easy to plot.
> 
> The trajectory of almost every measure of progress under Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
> 
> Another measure of the pride in America is the attitude towards America when our news came from Morrow, Swazy, Cronkite, the NYTimes, main stream media in general vs the constant America bashing of Fox News, Rush and his cronies, and right wing media sites, and, yes, the GOP.
> 
> The assault on American exceptionalism is almost an entirely right wing attack on everything American. Including the right to walk the street unarmed.



You want to walk the street unarmed? Have at it.
Who is going to stop you? Mama?


----------



## Gadawg73

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the pot or the kettle?
> 
> 
> 
> I think of myself as the snowy linen napkin whom the pots and the kettles call black.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, you are an ugly as sin mother fucker in a wheel chair.


----------



## Oldstyle

Wake said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone making the statement that Americans were not exceptional has already proven themselves to be ignorant of history.  While America is becoming less and less exceptional with each passing year because of our dependence on a cradle to the grave Nanny State, it is still head and shoulders above most of the rest of the world.
> 
> Trying to educate someone like Numan about that however would be a total waste of time.  He'll simply reply that I'm an American "liar".  That's his stock reply to all viewpoints he has no counter to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I give Numan the benefit of the doubt, because I believe in him as well as you. I'll agree with you that America does seem to be becoming less exceptional because of the cradle-to-the-grave governmental effect. Maybe Numan would open his ears up a bit more to you (general you) if he wasn't getting called names or having his own ideas or personal affects ridiculed. It takes at least two to build a bridge (I think, considering the latest technology).
> 
> There is a style and a way to winning people over. It must be genuine, and it takes an effort on your part to be nice to people. I'd really like to see you two hash it out on arguments and ideas alone, so that we can try to find out exactly what the ideological "cruxes" are that you two aren't able to agree on. Maybe we can work that out?
Click to expand...


You must not be reading the same Numan posts that I am, Wake.  He's not here to argue ideology or exchange ideas...he's here to *flame*.  You know it, I know it...and I'm confident that Numan not only would admit to it but indeed would REVEL in it.

The reason he makes the statements he does about Americans is that he knows it's going to get a rise out of someone.  He doesn't have anything else to offer.


----------



## jon_berzerk

testarosa said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> or a civil suit at. all.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true
> 
> it isnt like omara hasnt warned them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they smart enough
> 
> To heed the warning.
> 
> Seems Jesse isn't and is
> 
> Sticking his foot in it
> 
> Pretty badly.
> 
> There are consequences
> 
> For stupidity
Click to expand...


did you get a chance to see the lawsuit filed by Ben Kruidbos

Causes of Action - Kruidbos - 92_57 - Complaint - Final (1)

have you heard anymore about the sanctions and other Finnish up 

from the zimmerman trial 

omara pretty much has the proof that someone at the FLDE scrubbed 

or attempted to scrub martins cellphone


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Oldstyle said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone making the statement that Americans were not exceptional has already proven themselves to be ignorant of history.  While America is becoming less and less exceptional with each passing year because of our dependence on a cradle to the grave Nanny State, it is still head and shoulders above most of the rest of the world.
> 
> Trying to educate someone like Numan about that however would be a total waste of time.  He'll simply reply that I'm an American "liar".  That's his stock reply to all viewpoints he has no counter to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I give Numan the benefit of the doubt, because I believe in him as well as you. I'll agree with you that America does seem to be becoming less exceptional because of the cradle-to-the-grave governmental effect. Maybe Numan would open his ears up a bit more to you (general you) if he wasn't getting called names or having his own ideas or personal affects ridiculed. It takes at least two to build a bridge (I think, considering the latest technology).
> 
> There is a style and a way to winning people over. It must be genuine, and it takes an effort on your part to be nice to people. I'd really like to see you two hash it out on arguments and ideas alone, so that we can try to find out exactly what the ideological "cruxes" are that you two aren't able to agree on. Maybe we can work that out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not be reading the same Numan posts that I am, Wake.  He's not here to argue ideology or exchange ideas...he's here to *flame*.  You know it, I know it...and I'm confident that Numan not only would admit to it but indeed would REVEL in it.
> 
> The reason he makes the statements he does about Americans is that he knows it's going to get a rise out of someone.  He doesn't have anything else to offer.
Click to expand...


On the character scale, you and numan are at opposite ends. But, you keep talking and see if another zombie takes up your torch.


----------



## MHunterB

numan said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the pot or the kettle?
> 
> 
> 
> I think of myself as the snowy linen napkin whom the pots and the kettles call black.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Pop asked what you *are* - not how you imagine yourself.  Speaking of gratuitously disingenuous responses which purvey terminological inexactitudes......


----------



## testarosa

jon_berzerk said:


> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> true
> 
> it isnt like omara hasnt warned them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they smart enough
> 
> To heed the warning.
> 
> Seems Jesse isn't and is
> 
> Sticking his foot in it
> 
> Pretty badly.
> 
> There are consequences
> 
> For stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you get a chance to see the lawsuit filed by Ben Kruidbos
> 
> Causes of Action - Kruidbos - 92_57 - Complaint - Final (1)
> 
> have you heard anymore about the sanctions and other Finnish up
> 
> from the zimmerman trial
> 
> omara pretty much has the proof that someone at the FLDE scrubbed
> 
> or attempted to scrub martins cellphone
Click to expand...


I was looking for you

In all the wrong places!

Yepper...gotcha.

Fireworks forthcoming


----------



## testarosa

testarosa said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> testarosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they smart enough
> 
> To heed the warning.
> 
> Seems Jesse isn't and is
> 
> Sticking his foot in it
> 
> Pretty badly.
> 
> There are consequences
> 
> For stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you get a chance to see the lawsuit filed by Ben Kruidbos
> 
> Causes of Action - Kruidbos - 92_57 - Complaint - Final (1)
> 
> have you heard anymore about the sanctions and other Finnish up
> 
> from the zimmerman trial
> 
> omara pretty much has the proof that someone at the FLDE scrubbed
> 
> or attempted to scrub martins cellphone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was looking for you
> 
> In all the wrong places!
> 
> Yepper...gotcha.
> 
> Fireworks forthcoming
Click to expand...


Sanctions going to back burner

Waiting on the closet to be cleaned out

No one wants to be the one ruling

On that hot potato


----------



## Pop23

MHunterB said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you the pot or the kettle?
> 
> 
> 
> I think of myself as the snowy linen napkin whom the pots and the kettles call black.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pop asked what you *are* - not how you imagine yourself.  Speaking of gratuitously disingenuous responses which purvey terminological inexactitudes......
Click to expand...


I asked a simple question earlier based on what his side would do if they found themselves in a situation like Zimmerman

They could answer A or B. they all answered C

Same as always

Always a C, even when C does not exist

That's how the roll


----------



## PMZ

'C'  always exists.  Extremists believe in a world of 'A'  and 'B',  either black or white,  when that's never the case. 

That's why they so seldom are able to solve problems.


----------



## Mertex

beagle9 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee,  you'd think that all of that trauma would leave some marks behind.  Not to mention that you've heard only half of the story.  You seem desperate to believe that half even though,  with the other witness dead,  who's to know if any of it is true.
> 
> Reasonable doubt is a very low bar.
> 
> 
> 
> You are glad that the witness is dead it seems now aren't you ?  I mean I say this because it gives you the ability to just continue to opine and fantasize and/or inject your poison on this thread until you brow beat everyone to death all by yourself with it, and this by your knowing that the witness is dead in which gives you the ability to just sling it, and sling it, and to just sling it some more as based on that fact alone, in which you love to resort to just so you can take off in what ever direction next that you feel it will allow you to go ?
Click to expand...


One could say the same thing about you (glad the witness is dead). The witness being dead cannot contradict what the criminal is saying, thus allowing him to get away with murder.


----------



## Wake

What's bothersome is that two nights ago Bill O'Reilly stated that TM didn't deserve to die. Any time a young person dies it's a tragedy... but what else was GZ supposed to do? Bill, he could have died, and during the heat of the moment GZ was running out of options.


----------

