The Trayvon hoax: The perfect example of what happens wh

[ForeverYoung436]

Apparently everyone has more sense than you because we knew the dispatcher has no right to decide one way or the other, and the fact that you thought the dispatcher was the neighborhood watch coordinator.

The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." I don't have a transcript or recording of the call. The "we" could be the use of a popular expression, OR he could have been talking to other ppl in the room, including those in superior positions. As I said, I don't know.

If you don't know, STFU moron!

You're just an idiot. No use talking to you. The point is that he told by his committee not to follow Martin. There was no reason to be so overzealous when the youth was not committing any crime at all.

He was not told by any fucking committee, you ignorant dipshit! He was talking to a 911 dispatcher who is NOT a police officer!

I'm not impressed by your tough guy attitude. You should know that you only come off sounding like a freaking lunatic, so calm down and act like a normal human being. The committee refers to his watchmen organization. 911 trumps that. It's the police dept. 911 dispatchers are trained by the police dept. That trumps vigilante justice, especially when no crime had been committed. Who is Zimmerman to you anyway, your hero? The guy has been in trouble with the law himself, in cases unrelated to this one.

Now you're going on Ignore. I usually don't do that, but I'm not dealing with a rational human being here.

 

[Picaro]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

P.S. In most cases when a policeman, black or white, shoots someone who's in the midst of committing a crime (whether that person is black or white), I usually take the side of the police.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

Of course, anyone can be on public right of ways. Stalking someone is not normal though.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

Of course, anyone can be on public right of ways. Stalking someone is not normal though.

Stalking someone is not normal though.

You must have a unique definition of stalking.

Can you share it here?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

Of course, anyone can be on public right of ways. Stalking someone is not normal though.

Stalking someone is not normal though.

You must have a unique definition of stalking.

Can you share it here?

Following someone down streets and alleyways. Turning the corner whenever they do, or stopping whenever they stop. Going in the exact same direction. Usually, ppl can sense when they're being followed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

Of course, anyone can be on public right of ways. Stalking someone is not normal though.

Stalking someone is not normal though.

You must have a unique definition of stalking.

Can you share it here?

Following someone down streets and alleyways. Turning the corner whenever they do, or stopping whenever they stop. Going in the exact same direction. Usually, ppl can sense when they're being followed.

So your definition is completely divorced from the legal definition.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

Of course, anyone can be on public right of ways. Stalking someone is not normal though.

Stalking someone is not normal though.

You must have a unique definition of stalking.

Can you share it here?

Following someone down streets and alleyways. Turning the corner whenever they do, or stopping whenever they stop. Going in the exact same direction. Usually, ppl can sense when they're being followed.

So your definition is completely divorced from the legal definition.

Which is what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

Of course, anyone can be on public right of ways. Stalking someone is not normal though.

Stalking someone is not normal though.

You must have a unique definition of stalking.

Can you share it here?

Following someone down streets and alleyways. Turning the corner whenever they do, or stopping whenever they stop. Going in the exact same direction. Usually, ppl can sense when they're being followed.

So your definition is completely divorced from the legal definition.

Which is what?

You said he was stalking but you don't know the legal definition?

The word you should have used was following.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

Btw, when you said that anyone can be on the public right of ways, then that should apply to both Martin and Zimmerman. Ppl should be able to go for a walk, rain or shine. Ppl should be able to buy a snack and drink in a free country. Ppl should even be able to meander and look at houses. I've done that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

Btw, when you said that anyone can be on the public right of ways, then that should apply to both Martin and Zimmerman. Ppl should be able to go for a walk, rain or shine. Ppl should be able to buy a snack and drink in a free country. Ppl should even be able to meander and look at houses. I've done that.

Ppl should be able to go for a walk, rain or shine.

Without getting their head smashed against the pavement, right?

 

[MacTheKnife]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

hehheh Touche!

 

[MacTheKnife]

Bullshit. No good reason? You aren't even trying to be honest.

Have you noticed how here on U.S. Message Board when a black person posts a story about someone alleging racial discrimination there are a core group of people who show up on the thread trolling it with every reason under the sun why the act allegedly was not racially motivated and that there is no proof that it was racially motivated (see as an example A black man in Michigan tried to deposit checks at his bank. The manager called police)

By the same token (no pun intended) I have observed all of the stated reasons why this same core group believes that Zimmerman had any valid legal reason to follow Martin which does not involve profiling, particularly of a racial nature. I've also seen the various attempts to reinterpret both the Florida stalking statutes as well as the statute which indicates that a person can not claim self-defense if they are the aggressor in an altercation.

On top of all of this, Zimmerman was not in compliance with the Neighborhood Watch regulations which didn't allow their members to carry weapons while engaging in Neighborhood Watch duties, that their role is to report what they deem suspicious activity but not to engage the "suspect" nor was in compliance with the admonishment presented on the Florida Department of Agriculture reminding people who have obtained a concealed carry permit that it is ONLY a permit to conceal carry a weapon and that the holder needs to be knowledgeable of the circumstances in which they can use deadly force for self-defense.

Lastly, if anyone watched the video where the police detective had Zimmerman walk them through what happened that night, it was clear that they were coaching him and pointing out the weaknesses in his "narrative" presumably so that he could correct them before having to defend himself in a court of law.

I've encountered plenty of individuals who for whatever reason don't have a criminal record, but once you start looking into their contact with law enforcement, what their ex significant others have to say about them in divorce proceedings, etc. a pattern often begins to emerge. Zimmerman has had multiple instances of violence against others including a law enforcement officer, but all of his crap always seems to get cleaned up.

People make mistakes, they often misinterpret situations, do the wrong thing or just totally screw up, but the thing about Zimmerman that cements my feelings for him is the fact that he stated that if he had the opportunity to do everything over again knowing now what he didn't know then - that Martin was a teen, that he was not "high" (not that that is any of his damn business) and that he was not armed - he still would have killed hiim.

Major asshole and hopefully one day he'll reap what he has sown.

Do you appreciate President Trump recognizing The Tuskegee Airmen in his State of The Union address last night?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Bullshit. No good reason? You aren't even trying to be honest.

Have you noticed how here on U.S. Message Board when a black person posts a story about someone alleging racial discrimination there are a core group of people who show up on the thread trolling it with every reason under the sun why the act allegedly was not racially motivated and that there is no proof that it was racially motivated (see as an example A black man in Michigan tried to deposit checks at his bank. The manager called police)

By the same token (no pun intended) I have observed all of the stated reasons why this same core group believes that Zimmerman had any valid legal reason to follow Martin which does not involve profiling, particularly of a racial nature. I've also seen the various attempts to reinterpret both the Florida stalking statutes as well as the statute which indicates that a person can not claim self-defense if they are the aggressor in an altercation.

On top of all of this, Zimmerman was not in compliance with the Neighborhood Watch regulations which didn't allow their members to carry weapons while engaging in Neighborhood Watch duties, that their role is to report what they deem suspicious activity but not to engage the "suspect" nor was in compliance with the admonishment presented on the Florida Department of Agriculture reminding people who have obtained a concealed carry permit that it is ONLY a permit to conceal carry a weapon and that the holder needs to be knowledgeable of the circumstances in which they can use deadly force for self-defense.

Lastly, if anyone watched the video where the police detective had Zimmerman walk them through what happened that night, it was clear that they were coaching him and pointing out the weaknesses in his "narrative" presumably so that he could correct them before having to defend himself in a court of law.

I've encountered plenty of individuals who for whatever reason don't have a criminal record, but once you start looking into their contact with law enforcement, what their ex significant others have to say about them in divorce proceedings, etc. a pattern often begins to emerge. Zimmerman has had multiple instances of violence against others including a law enforcement officer, but all of his crap always seems to get cleaned up.

People make mistakes, they often misinterpret situations, do the wrong thing or just totally screw up, but the thing about Zimmerman that cements my feelings for him is the fact that he stated that if he had the opportunity to do everything over again knowing now what he didn't know then - that Martin was a teen, that he was not "high" (not that that is any of his damn business) and that he was not armed - he still would have killed hiim.

Major asshole and hopefully one day he'll reap what he has sown.

Do you appreciate President Trump recognizing The Tuskegee Airmen in his State of The Union address last night?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? In other words, what does that have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Why is everything with you so black-and-white, in BOTH meanings of that term? The acquittal of OJ Simpson was a travesty of justice, and the acquittal of Zimmerman was also a travesty of justice. Look at the individual cases, and not only the color of someone's skin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit. No good reason? You aren't even trying to be honest.

Have you noticed how here on U.S. Message Board when a black person posts a story about someone alleging racial discrimination there are a core group of people who show up on the thread trolling it with every reason under the sun why the act allegedly was not racially motivated and that there is no proof that it was racially motivated (see as an example A black man in Michigan tried to deposit checks at his bank. The manager called police)

By the same token (no pun intended) I have observed all of the stated reasons why this same core group believes that Zimmerman had any valid legal reason to follow Martin which does not involve profiling, particularly of a racial nature. I've also seen the various attempts to reinterpret both the Florida stalking statutes as well as the statute which indicates that a person can not claim self-defense if they are the aggressor in an altercation.

On top of all of this, Zimmerman was not in compliance with the Neighborhood Watch regulations which didn't allow their members to carry weapons while engaging in Neighborhood Watch duties, that their role is to report what they deem suspicious activity but not to engage the "suspect" nor was in compliance with the admonishment presented on the Florida Department of Agriculture reminding people who have obtained a concealed carry permit that it is ONLY a permit to conceal carry a weapon and that the holder needs to be knowledgeable of the circumstances in which they can use deadly force for self-defense.

Lastly, if anyone watched the video where the police detective had Zimmerman walk them through what happened that night, it was clear that they were coaching him and pointing out the weaknesses in his "narrative" presumably so that he could correct them before having to defend himself in a court of law.

I've encountered plenty of individuals who for whatever reason don't have a criminal record, but once you start looking into their contact with law enforcement, what their ex significant others have to say about them in divorce proceedings, etc. a pattern often begins to emerge. Zimmerman has had multiple instances of violence against others including a law enforcement officer, but all of his crap always seems to get cleaned up.

People make mistakes, they often misinterpret situations, do the wrong thing or just totally screw up, but the thing about Zimmerman that cements my feelings for him is the fact that he stated that if he had the opportunity to do everything over again knowing now what he didn't know then - that Martin was a teen, that he was not "high" (not that that is any of his damn business) and that he was not armed - he still would have killed hiim.

Major asshole and hopefully one day he'll reap what he has sown.

Do you appreciate President Trump recognizing The Tuskegee Airmen in his State of The Union address last night?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? In other words, what does that have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Why is everything with you so black-and-white, in BOTH meanings of that term? The acquittal of OJ Simpson was a travesty of justice, and the acquittal of Zimmerman was also a travesty of justice. Look at the individual cases, and not only the color of someone's skin.

the acquittal of Zimmerman was also a travesty of justice.

Why was self-defense a travesty?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Time and again we see the msm demonstrate that it is not about the truth which they avoid like the paguel...is is not even about the news....what they are all about is propaganda ....spewing propaganda 24-7

(Natural News) An investigative journalist is supposed to be someone who digs deep, sometimes working for years to expose the truth about a single crime that’s been committed, corruption that has gone undiscovered, fraud that has left people destitute, and so on.

Also known as watchdog journalism, the investigative journalist shines a light on what others have gone to great lengths to hide. The goal of this type of journalism? To trigger change, reveal what has been hidden, and get to the truth of what really happened in any given situation.

While the mainstream media focuses on simply reporting the news, investigative journalists work hard to get to the truth behind some of those stories – or at least that’s what they’re supposed to do.

In recent years, however, it seems as though investigative journalists – like many in the mainstream media – have either become incredibly lazy or are actively working to spread misinformation. Either way, the real truth about many of the stories we are fed on the news just never gets exposed anymore.

A perfect example of this is the tragic death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American high school student who was shot to death by neighborhood watch coordinator, George Zimmerman. The media portrayed the incident as a racially motivated killing, never stopping to check the true facts of the case. Everybody took sides, and racial strife on a scale not seen in decades resulted.


The Trayvon hoax: The perfect example of what happens when investigative journalists don't do their jobs

Zimmerman's life SHOULD have been destroyed. In fact, he rightfully should be in prison for life. (He's had several unrelated brushes with the law since this case.) He executed a young man for going out on a drizzly night to buy a drink and a snack to eat while watching an NBA game on TV. The dispatcher told him it was unnecessary for him to follow the lad. And now he has the gall to sue the parents of the victim of his crime for 100 million dollars, adding insult to injury!

He was attacked, and shot in self defense.
Nothing else that happened to Zimmerman before or since, matters.
Doesn't matter what the dispatcher said. Me following you, doesn't give you a right to attack me.

So there should be thousands of Zimmermans? Let me tell you about that sleazebag. He was arrested for a domestic violence incident when he pointed a gun at his girlfriend. He was arrested for another domestic violence incident for throwing a glass at a different girlfriend. The police were called when he threatened to beat up his girlfriend's father. The police were called again when he was involved in a road rage incident with another driver.

But that loser did profit when he sold the gun that he used to kill Martin, for upwards of $100,000 dollars. MacTheKnife probably was the fool who bought that gun.

 

[Picaro]

Time and again we see the msm demonstrate that it is not about the truth which they avoid like the paguel...is is not even about the news....what they are all about is propaganda ....spewing propaganda 24-7

(Natural News) An investigative journalist is supposed to be someone who digs deep, sometimes working for years to expose the truth about a single crime that’s been committed, corruption that has gone undiscovered, fraud that has left people destitute, and so on.

Also known as watchdog journalism, the investigative journalist shines a light on what others have gone to great lengths to hide. The goal of this type of journalism? To trigger change, reveal what has been hidden, and get to the truth of what really happened in any given situation.

While the mainstream media focuses on simply reporting the news, investigative journalists work hard to get to the truth behind some of those stories – or at least that’s what they’re supposed to do.

In recent years, however, it seems as though investigative journalists – like many in the mainstream media – have either become incredibly lazy or are actively working to spread misinformation. Either way, the real truth about many of the stories we are fed on the news just never gets exposed anymore.

A perfect example of this is the tragic death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American high school student who was shot to death by neighborhood watch coordinator, George Zimmerman. The media portrayed the incident as a racially motivated killing, never stopping to check the true facts of the case. Everybody took sides, and racial strife on a scale not seen in decades resulted.


The Trayvon hoax: The perfect example of what happens when investigative journalists don't do their jobs

Zimmerman's life SHOULD have been destroyed. In fact, he rightfully should be in prison for life. (He's had several unrelated brushes with the law since this case.) He executed a young man for going out on a drizzly night to buy a drink and a snack to eat while watching an NBA game on TV. The dispatcher told him it was unnecessary for him to follow the lad. And now he has the gall to sue the parents of the victim of his crime for 100 million dollars, adding insult to injury!

He was attacked, and shot in self defense.
Nothing else that happened to Zimmerman before or since, matters.
Doesn't matter what the dispatcher said. Me following you, doesn't give you a right to attack me.

So there should be thousands of Zimmermans? Let me tell you about that sleazebag. He was arrested for a domestic violence incident when he pointed a gun at his girlfriend. He was arrested for another domestic violence incident for throwing a glass at a different girlfriend. The police were called when he threatened to beat up his girlfriend's father. The police were called again when he was involved in a road rage incident with another driver.

But that loser did profit when he sold the gun that he used to kill Martin, for upwards of $100,000 dollars. MacTheKnife probably was the fool who bought that gun.

So why was he never arrested and tried for any of that stuff? Oh yeah, because they were faked charges by pissed off girlfriends, who never actually pressed charges.

 

[Picaro]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

Btw, when you said that anyone can be on the public right of ways, then that should apply to both Martin and Zimmerman. Ppl should be able to go for a walk, rain or shine. Ppl should be able to buy a snack and drink in a free country. Ppl should even be able to meander and look at houses. I've done that.

And Zimmerman did nothing to interfere with Martin, who for some reason got extremely nervous and ran away. We know now he went to ditch something he didn't want to get caught with, obviously, then came back and assaulted Zimmerman with intent to do serious bodily harm and probably murder him. That's okay with you, cuz like, Zimmerman looked at him n stuff, which of course in your mind means he had to die.

 

[Picaro]

Having read an account of the case on the Internet just now, I would say both parties behaved badly. It wasn't such a clear-cut case of right and wrong. Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character in his own right, having had a couple of brushes with law since then. He was not on active neighborhood watch at the time of the incident, and had been told by his "superiors" not to continue to follow Martin. Clearly, he was overzealous. The article said he did not identify himself to Martin. If this is true, it would increase Martin's defenses about this stranger. Perhaps Martin saw the gun. Incidentally (although Zimmerman could not have known this), Martin had a perfect right to be there, since he was staying with his dad's fiancee at the time. Although Martin clearly overreacted, his age and inexperience should also be taken into account. To repeat, the case is not so black-and-white.

So, neighborhood watch members are supposed to punch a time clock or something, and if they see something while driving to the store or something it's illegal for them to report that or act on it? lol that's first for me.

And, do you really believe one has to be member of a neighbor hood watch to do what Zimmerman was doing? lol that's even funnier. You're obviously young and don't know much, and you apparently don't know anything about who can be on public right of ways. Hint: Black people don't own them.

I don't look at black or white. I look at individual cases.

Of course, anyone can be on public right of ways. Stalking someone is not normal though.

Stalking someone is not normal though.

You must have a unique definition of stalking.

Can you share it here?

Following someone down streets and alleyways. Turning the corner whenever they do, or stopping whenever they stop. Going in the exact same direction. Usually, ppl can sense when they're being followed.

So call the cops. duh. Sorry, you don't get to beat people's heads on concrete just because they're white and in a public place, no matter what they think in Compton or on The Real. Saint Trayvon was on the phone most of the time.