Jump to content

Your Opinion Of Zimerman Now?


Recommended Posts

Sorry, but the answer is #4. My point is that there IS a problem with African-American males being murdered. The real threat, however, is from OTHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN males (statistics back this up not only for Harrisburg, but the nation as a whole). Which makes the hysteria and focus on the Zimmerman case somewhat ridiculous (aside from the fact that it clearly looks like a case of justified self-defense).

 

Jailing the George Zimmerman's of the world, or threatening them with jail, isn't going to solve the crime problem among the African-American community.

 

1. That is a classic case of deflection.

2. Sounds like African American crime issues needs it's own thread.

3. Whatever issue African Americans have among themselves it does not make potential racial issues moot.

 

Conservatives bash this trial and the uproar over this case because it had greater implications and was used as a proxy for racial issues within America, but then use the case as a proxy here to rant about issues they feel happen within the African American community and deflect away from certain obvious things, most notably Zimmerman's racial past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt. I never dreamed you could convince 12 people DNA evidence was a scam and if the gloves didnt fit you must acquit! :hysterical:

 

After they convinced 12 people that LAPD wasn't beating Rodney King it was obvious that anything could happen, even something as dumb as returning a not guilty verdict for OJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we were talking about "Your Opinion of Zimmerman Now", not what might be bothering you racially somewhere else.

 

You really can't separate any discussion of this case from the discussion occurring on the national stage. The fact that this case has received so much national attention is the reason it warrants its own thread on this site in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. That is a classic case of deflection.

2. Sounds like African American crime issues needs it's own thread.

3. Whatever issue African Americans have among themselves it does not make potential racial issues moot.

 

Conservatives bash this trial and the uproar over this case because it had greater implications and was used as a proxy for racial issues within America, but then use the case as a proxy here to rant about issues they feel happen within the African American community and deflect away from certain obvious things, most notably Zimmerman's racial past.

 

So only Martin supporters were allowed to use the trial as a "proxy for racial issues"? It simply doesn't work that way in the real world. Unfortunately for Martin's supporters, the real-world facts don't support the narrative that they have been trying to advance.

 

We don't "feel" that those issues are happening in the African-American community. They ARE happening. Official statistics bear this out - African American males are most likely to be murdered by other African-American males - not whites, not Hispanics, not Asians. They are not being shot by overzealous Neighborhood Watch volunteers. And, yes, African-Americans commit crime out of proportion to their numbers. This is not because they have been singled out by racist police officers: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html

 

Regarding Zimmerman's "racial past," we've covered that ground before on this site. He has friends who are African-American, and several defended him after the shooting. Several FBI agents, at the direct order of the President, investigated Zimmerman (which could be considered an abuse of authority) and found no evidence of racist actions or expressions regarding African-Americans on Zimmerman's part. There is simply no evidence that Zimmerman was a racist who hated African-Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After they convinced 12 people that LAPD wasn't beating Rodney King it was obvious that anything could happen, even something as dumb as returning a not guilty verdict for OJ.

The prosecution in the O.J. Simpson case made several serious blunders. The prosecution deserves most of the blame for failing to present a coherent, direct case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So only Martin supporters were allowed to use the trial as a "proxy for racial issues"? It simply doesn't work that way in the real world. Unfortunately for Martin's supporters, the real-world facts don't support the narrative that they have been trying to advance.

 

We don't "feel" that those issues are happening in the African-American community. They ARE happening. Official statistics bear this out - African American males are most likely to be murdered by other African-American males - not whites, not Hispanics, not Asians. They are not being shot by overzealous Neighborhood Watch volunteers. And, yes, African-Americans commit crime out of proportion to their numbers. This is not because they have been singled out by racist police officers: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html

 

Regarding Zimmerman's "racial past," we've covered that ground before on this site. He has friends who are African-American, and several defended him after the shooting. Several FBI agents, at the direct order of the President, investigated Zimmerman (which could be considered an abuse of authority) and found no evidence of racist actions or expressions regarding African-Americans on Zimmerman's part. There is simply no evidence that Zimmerman was a racist who hated African-Americans.

 

 

Zman has also been a mentor to black kids (not widely reported) , really amazing that a supposed racist would volunteer their time as such.

 

In addition to the lead detective believing Zmans statement or account of events he apparently passed a lie detector test the day after the shooting,

That really pokes more holes in the prosecution painting him as a liar. Maybe this is why the lead detective believes him is becasue he administered the test.

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/george-zimmerman-lie-detector-421395

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So only Martin supporters were allowed to use the trial as a "proxy for racial issues"? It simply doesn't work that way in the real world. Unfortunately for Martin's supporters, the real-world facts don't support the narrative that they have been trying to advance.

 

We don't "feel" that those issues are happening in the African-American community. They ARE happening. Official statistics bear this out - African American males are most likely to be murdered by other African-American males - not whites, not Hispanics, not Asians. They are not being shot by overzealous Neighborhood Watch volunteers. And, yes, African-Americans commit crime out of proportion to their numbers. This is not because they have been singled out by racist police officers: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html

 

Regarding Zimmerman's "racial past," we've covered that ground before on this site. He has friends who are African-American, and several defended him after the shooting. Several FBI agents, at the direct order of the President, investigated Zimmerman (which could be considered an abuse of authority) and found no evidence of racist actions or expressions regarding African-Americans on Zimmerman's part. There is simply no evidence that Zimmerman was a racist who hated African-Americans.

 

No, but many conservatives here that are now using it to express their dislike of African american culture went after liberals who discussed it as a racial incident. Cal50 and others can't cry that liberals were using the race card and were racist for doing so and then turn around and use a different race card to suggest that Zimmerman's not guilty.

 

Yes, we did cover that, and I still feel based on what I've learned about his past actions that he has racial issues. Calling 9/11 about a African American 6 year old who could be a criminal that's some racist shit to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis

Oh look, Obama’s resident lapdog has come out in favor of the persecution of an innocent man. Tell me Langston, do you form your own opinions, or do you wait to see what Barry has to say before you open your mouth? Was it difficult to keep switching back and forth on the issue of gay rights?

 

Let me ask you a question Langston (have I been here long enough to do so yet?). Does it bother you when you read / hear one of you fellow Liberals get crucial information on this case wrong? I mean, if you’re buddy GaryG said that Mr. Zimmerman was guilty because he disobeyed a direct police order not to leave his vehicle, would you come out and correct him with the right information, or would you stay quiet? Or would you even know he had it wrong? Doesn’t it bother you that so many Liberals have shown they have a complete lack of knowledge on this case, yet scream at the top of their lungs about Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt?

 

I have another question as well. How do you feel about the numerous anti-Zimmerman groups out there that are threatening violence against Mr. Zimmerman and society itself if there is an acquittal in this case? Why is it that Liberals accuse Conservatives of trying to ruin the country, when it’s Liberals who show absolute contempt for the justice system? OJ Simpson was guilty, yet because the State failed to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, he was set free. Did you see people rioting over that? So explain the LA Riots of ’92. Explain why there have been threats to do the same in Florida if they don’t convict an innocent man. Now explain the leadership your President has shown. The first black President (why is Obama black despite being mix race, but Zimmerman is White-Hispanic. Never mind, we know why) has done nothing but fuel the fire. Claiming poor little Trayvon looks just like his son, if he had one (again, why is it if I saw all black males look alike, it’s racism, but when Obama does it, no one says a word. Never mind, we know why). If Obama had an ounce of leadership in him, he’d be on TV twice a week telling the people who voted for him (even the ones who voted more than once) that we as a society need to support and respect the judicial system, even if we don’t always agree with the outcome.

 

At the end of the day, the State must prove Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And I’m sorry, but after what we’ve seen for the last two weeks, two weeks of the State laying out their case, not only is there reasonable doubt, there is more than ample evidence to prove his outright innocence and convict Martin of assult.. But Obama said he was guilty, so it doesn’t matter what happens in that court, his followers will continue to pollute the air while ignoring evidence.

 

Tell me Langston, in your opinion, why did the media initially call Mr. Zimmerman white? Why have they continued to show pictures of a 12 year old Trayvon Martin, and not the more recent ones from his own social media accounts? Why did they alter the 911 tape or the pictures from the Police station in order to hide the injuries? Why did they make a big deal about a photo on Instagram, and not the fact the State's key witness was 19 years old and unable to read the letter she wrote in cursive? Why would Mr. Zimmerman call 911 and give them his name and exact location if he was planning on committing a crime?

 

Never mind. I know you won’t answer. And it’s clear why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny the discussion comes up all the time whether or not Zimmerman was "Profiling" and suspected a "Person" that possibly did`nt (belong) in that allegedly predominately Caucasian Home Owner Association Community. And the point is.....? Cops routinely everyday "Profile" individuals regardless of what you want to call it. Try strolling around Worth Ave on Palm Beach, Fl looking either like a Homeless Person or worse yet, being either Latino or Black and see how long before a "friendly" Palm Beach Policeman approaches you with a (friendly) "Hello", and simply asks you, hows your day going, what`s up, and can I help you find something your looking for? "Profiling", hell no. Just trying to be (helpful), right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about the whole political crap on this thread, that has no place, IMO on whether Zimmerman is guilty. Again simply IMO, based on the information I've seen on TV and read in the local paper, my assumption is the guy is guilty. Am I wrong, could be. Nothing any of the people here want to bicker about matters and will not change the outcome of the verdict. If he is found guilty, I may agree and believe justice was served. If he's found not guilty, I'll assume my thoughts must have been wrong, Zimmerman was innocent and justice was served. Why such the huge ordeal? But as with many trials aired in the media like this, no matter the verdict, the losing side will shout this trial was unjust and fixed.

Edited by V8-X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis

I'm scared where you are getting your information from if that's your assumption. The State has rested its case, and without the defense calling one witness, they have more than enough for reasonable doubt

 

Please, please, tell me what you think he is guilty of and why

 

 

based on the information I've seen on TV and read in the local paper, my assumption is the guy is guilty.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm scared where you are getting your information from if that's your assumption. The State has rested its case, and without the defense calling one witness, they have more than enough for reasonable doubt

 

Please, please, tell me what you think he is guilty of and why

The state will call their witnesses when they present their case.

Edited by napfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm scared where you are getting your information from if that's your assumption. The State has rested its case, and without the defense calling one witness, they have more than enough for reasonable doubt

 

Please, please, tell me what you think he is guilty of and why

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels, The Denver Post newspaper.

 

Disagree if you like, not here to argue with you over your personal beliefs. Based on all the evidence I've seen reported and the fact he followed Martin after being told not to by the operator. Had he stayed in his vehicle or home and allowed the police to perform their duties, Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial and Martin would more than likely be alive today. The decision of one man (Zimmerman) to defy the operators orders and follow Martin with a gun created this entire situation. Did Zimmerman have the intention to kill Martin, most likely not but he did. Zimmerman ultimately was the reason for the altercation. Whether he was defending himself or not, we truly do not know if Martin was simply doing the same, defending himself from someone following him with a gun.

 

So until the verdict comes in, this is my belief. Disagree all you like, but you will not change my opinion, only the outcome of the trial will.

Edited by V8-X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels, The Denver Post newspaper.

 

Disagree if you like, not here to argue with you over your personal beliefs. Based on all the evidence I've seen reported and the fact he followed Martin after being told not to by the operator. Had he stayed in his vehicle or home and allowed the police to perform their duties, Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial and Martin would more than likely be alive today. The decision of one man (Zimmerman) to defy the operators orders and follow Martin with a gun created this entire situation. Did Zimmerman have the intention to kill Martin, most likely not but he did. Zimmerman ultimately was the reason for the altercation. Whether he was defending himself or not, we truly do not know if Martin was simply doing the same, defending himself from someone following him with a gun.

 

Thank goodness you're not on the jury. While you are correct that the situation could have been avoided had Zimmerman not pursued him, that really has no bearing on the verdict. This is the problem with finding impartial juries. Just because it's a tragedy doesn't mean it's a crime.

 

Ask yourself this: If Martin was faster and had a headstart, then how did Z-man catch him unless he either stopped and/or came back to confront him? Had it not been for political pressure they never would have filed charges.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels, The Denver Post newspaper.

 

Disagree if you like, not here to argue with you over your personal beliefs. Based on all the evidence I've seen reported and the fact he followed Martin after being told not to by the operator. Had he stayed in his vehicle or home and allowed the police to perform their duties, Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial and Martin would more than likely be alive today. The decision of one man (Zimmerman) to defy the operators orders and follow Martin with a gun created this entire situation. Did Zimmerman have the intention to kill Martin, most likely not but he did. Zimmerman ultimately was the reason for the altercation. Whether he was defending himself or not, we truly do not know if Martin was simply doing the same, defending himself from someone following him with a gun.

 

So until the verdict comes in, this is my belief. Disagree all you like, but you will not change my opinion, only the outcome of the trial will.

And if you didn't drive a car, you would not have been rear-ended in the freeway.

 

 

It is irrelevant if Zimmerman followed Martin or not, and I think he said he was following him and the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". That is not a directive. There was not any restriction on Zimmerman from doing ANYTHING of his own free will. He never gave up his personal freedom, was not a sworn law-enforcement officer, was not a felon and was just as free to walk in the neighborhood as anyone else.

 

How stupid do you have to be to think walking up to someone is illegal. And the issue of being armed in no way infers his guilt. At this point, he is innocent until the jury finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Where are those who stand in defense of this country today when a man is charged with a crime but the press has demonstrated a willingness to try the case on it's front pages (for increased circulation and income, to be sure)?

 

No man should stand to crucify Zimmerman if they have not stood to call O.J. a murderer. The public decided the case against the jury. Would you want to face the public in a murder case....or a jury?

 

So all of you accusing him of being a murderer are standing directly against the fundamental concept this country was founded on. Is that something else you think would be better as "fundamentally changing the country"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank goodness you're not on the jury. While you are correct that the situation could have been avoided had Zimmerman not pursued him, that really has no bearing on the verdict. This is the problem with finding impartial juries. Just because it's a tragedy doesn't mean it's a crime.

 

Ask yourself this: If Martin was faster and had a headstart, then how did Z-man catch him unless he either stopped and/or came back to confront him? Had it not been for political pressure they never would have filed charges.

Just as I'm glad that many posters in this thread, yourself included are not on the jury.

 

Yes, the decision of Zimmerman following and making contact with Martin should play a part in the verdict. The altercation simply would not have occurred had Zimmerman followed instructions. Sure Zimmerman couldn't have foreseen the outcome, which is why it's not 1st degree murder charges. Similar to drinking and driving. People who drink and drive don't intentionally kill people, but they can and do, and should be held accountable for their actions and decisions, just like Zimmerman. Any man in their right mind and thinking logically would know following any individual at night with a gun and with a predetermined mindset that this individual was up to no good regardless of color, would not end well.

 

Martin having a head start and being faster has absolutely nothing to do with the verdict or outcome. We do not know if Martin hid, stopped or came back to confront Zimmerman. So this point is baseless.

 

This is not a case of political pressure. It's about an individual who shot another individual, period. If Zimmerman is innocent and was right to use self defense, then that will prevail. If not, he'll be found guilty and sent to prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you didn't drive a car, you would not have been rear-ended in the freeway.

 

 

It is irrelevant if Zimmerman followed Martin or not, and I think he said he was following him and the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". That is not a directive. There was not any restriction on Zimmerman from doing ANYTHING of his own free will. He never gave up his personal freedom, was not a sworn law-enforcement officer, was not a felon and was just as free to walk in the neighborhood as anyone else.

 

How stupid do you have to be to think walking up to someone is illegal. And the issue of being armed in no way infers his guilt. At this point, he is innocent until the jury finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Where are those who stand in defense of this country today when a man is charged with a crime but the press has demonstrated a willingness to try the case on it's front pages (for increased circulation and income, to be sure)?

 

No man should stand to crucify Zimmerman if they have not stood to call O.J. a murderer. The public decided the case against the jury. Would you want to face the public in a murder case....or a jury?

 

So all of you accusing him of being a murderer are standing directly against the fundamental concept this country was founded on. Is that something else you think would be better as "fundamentally changing the country"?

Love the rambling and how many here feel they're so much better, think they know the laws or what this country was founded on better simply because they have a different belief or view.

 

Simply walking up to someone with a concealed weapon is not an offense. Following someone and confronting them with the gun in plain site with the intention of intimidating the other individual can be construed as premeditation.

 

Not getting into more bickering over who's right or wrong. Cause you know what, I could be wrong, but you may end up being wrong. You just never know.

 

Funny how yesterday was Independence Day, which gives me and you the freedom to think for ourselves. And like I stated in a previous post, no matter how much you attempt to talk down to me, you will not change my opinion. Only the verdict can or will change that. Thanks for playing though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis
CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels, The Denver Post newspaper.

 

Disagree if you like, not here to argue with you over your personal beliefs. Based on all the evidence I've seen reported and the fact he followed Martin after being told not to by the operator. Had he stayed in his vehicle or home and allowed the police to perform their duties, Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial and Martin would more than likely be alive today. The decision of one man (Zimmerman) to defy the operators orders and follow Martin with a gun created this entire situation. Did Zimmerman have the intention to kill Martin, most likely not but he did. Zimmerman ultimately was the reason for the altercation. Whether he was defending himself or not, we truly do not know if Martin was simply doing the same, defending himself from someone following him with a gun.

 

So until the verdict comes in, this is my belief. Disagree all you like, but you will not change my opinion, only the outcome of the trial will.

 

 

And this is what scares me. You are basing your guilt on something that by law, he can’t be found guilty of. Never mind the fact that you are ignoring evidence. This is not a personal belief; these are facts. It would appear you are the one basing things on your beliefs

 

Please look at the 911 tape to see for yourself, but I’ll highlight the important part

 

911 dispatcher:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

 

And

 

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

 

At this point, Zimmerman is in his vehicle, but when Martin takes off running, the 911 operator asks him for where he is headed to. So Zimmerman, wanting to give the information the 911 operator is looking for, exits his vehicle and gives chase.

 

Then

 

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him?

Zimmerman:

Yeah.

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that.

Zimmerman:

OK.

 

(After this, Zimmerman talks to the operator about where he can meet the Police whom he believes are arriving any second)

 

When the operator realizes Zimmerman is running (based on the heavy breathing and the wind rushing through the microphone) he is informed not to. Which he complies based on the breathing returning to normal and the wind not rushing through the mic.

 

So there is more than ample proof that Zimmerman did obey the 911 operator. However, even if he didn’t obey them, that’s not illegal. 911 operators are NOT, I repeat, are NOT trained Law Enforcement Agents. The cannot and do not give lawful commands

 

Saying this could have been avoid if Zimmerman stayed in his car is no different than saying it would have been avoided if Martin hadn’t been suspended from school, and sent to live with his father, who despite being grounded, went out to the local store while it was raining, and instead of heading straight back, wandered through a neighborhood he didn’t live in casing the place.

 

Based upon the evidence I’ve seen, the reason for this altercation was simple. Trayvon Martin was a bad person who had a history of doing bad things, and thought he was cool for doing. When he realized he was spotted that night, he took off running, but then realized he wouldn’t gain street cred for running away from a security guard. So instead of going home (where he could have easily gone to based on the head start he had), he circled back to do the same thing to Zimmerman that he did to the bus driver. The problem is, the bus driver didn’t fight back; Zimmerman did.

 

It’s your decision if you don’t want to have a debate and maybe learn a little about this case. But when you base your opinion of this man’s guilt on information that is either wrong, or inconsequential, it’s just plain ignorance

 

The system did the right thing when they released Zimmerman after reviewing the evidence. The problem came, when special interests got involved and made this into what it is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest General Mattis
Just as I'm glad that many posters in this thread, yourself included are not on the jury.

 

Yes, the decision of Zimmerman following and making contact with Martin should play a part in the verdict. The altercation simply would not have occurred had Zimmerman followed instructions. Sure Zimmerman couldn't have foreseen the outcome, which is why it's not 1st degree murder charges. Similar to drinking and driving. People who drink and drive don't intentionally kill people, but they can and do, and should be held accountable for their actions and decisions, just like Zimmerman. Any man in their right mind and thinking logically would know following any individual at night with a gun and with a predetermined mindset that this individual was up to no good regardless of color, would not end well.

 

Martin having a head start and being faster has absolutely nothing to do with the verdict or outcome. We do not know if Martin hid, stopped or came back to confront Zimmerman. So this point is baseless.

 

This is not a case of political pressure. It's about an individual who shot another individual, period. If Zimmerman is innocent and was right to use self defense, then that will prevail. If not, he'll be found guilty and sent to prison.

 

 

If Martin circled around and confronted Zimmerman and initiated the incident, then it has absolutely all the baring in the world. Zimmerman had broken no law up to that point. The issue at hand is who started the fight, and more importantly, was Zimmerman rightfully fearing for his life.

 

This is why you should start having discussions about this, so you can understand the law, and what evidence has been presented

 

So, do you think OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are both innocent? What about Stacey Koon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the rambling and how many here feel they're so much better, think they know the laws or what this country was founded on better simply because they have a different belief or view.(Does that include yourself?)

 

Simply walking up to someone with a concealed weapon is not an offense.(Agreed)

 

Following someone and confronting them with the gun in plain site with the intention of intimidating the other individual can be construed as premeditation.(Really? But it is the use of the weapon, whether premeditated or not , that is the criminal offense. And the "target" of the intimidation bears responsibility for their actions when facing intimidation, do they not? Just because someone "gets in your face" and says something you disagree with and you may be offended by, does not authorize the use of deadly force nor does it authorize the use of violence. "Fighting words" are not a defense. A car cuts you off on the highway, but if you sideswipe him to get even, you are at fault. Premeditation is not illegal in itself. It is when it is present and leads to a criminal act that it becomes a factor in the severity of the charge. You can think of killing your worst enemy all day long. You can plot it, plan it, fantasize about it and dream about it. THAT is not illegal. But executing your plan and causing harm to another after such planning IS illegal.))

 

Not getting into more bickering over who's right or wrong. Cause you know what, I could be wrong, but you may end up being wrong. You just never know.(No, you don't. And I defend your right to be wrong.)

 

Funny how yesterday was Independence Day, which gives me and you the freedom to think for ourselves. And like I stated in a previous post, no matter how much you attempt to talk down to me (I don't think I talked "down" to you. I only stated the stupidity of saying it was illegal for Zimmerman to walk up to Martin. And unless you ARE making that point, you have no reason to feel slighted.), you will not change my opinion. Only the verdict can or will change that. (I agree. The jury finds the truth in the evidence as presented within the guidelines provided by the judge when he charges them. That is until the verdict is appealed. )

 

Thanks for playing though!

(You're welcome. Stop back by next time you feel like jumping in and back out of the conversation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you didn't drive a car, you would not have been rear-ended in the freeway.

 

 

It is irrelevant if Zimmerman followed Martin or not, and I think he said he was following him and the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". That is not a directive. There was not any restriction on Zimmerman from doing ANYTHING of his own free will. He never gave up his personal freedom, was not a sworn law-enforcement officer, was not a felon and was just as free to walk in the neighborhood as anyone else.

 

How stupid do you have to be to think walking up to someone is illegal. And the issue of being armed in no way infers his guilt. At this point, he is innocent until the jury finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Where are those who stand in defense of this country today when a man is charged with a crime but the press has demonstrated a willingness to try the case on it's front pages (for increased circulation and income, to be sure)?

 

No man should stand to crucify Zimmerman if they have not stood to call O.J. a murderer. The public decided the case against the jury. Would you want to face the public in a murder case....or a jury?

 

So all of you accusing him of being a murderer are standing directly against the fundamental concept this country was founded on. Is that something else you think would be better as "fundamentally changing the country"?

 

 

And if you didn't drive a car, you would not have been rear-ended in the freeway.

 

 

It is irrelevant if Zimmerman followed Martin or not, and I think he said he was following him and the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". That is not a directive. There was not any restriction on Zimmerman from doing ANYTHING of his own free will. He never gave up his personal freedom, was not a sworn law-enforcement officer, was not a felon and was just as free to walk in the neighborhood as anyone else.

 

How stupid do you have to be to think walking up to someone is illegal. And the issue of being armed in no way infers his guilt. At this point, he is innocent until the jury finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Where are those who stand in defense of this country today when a man is charged with a crime but the press has demonstrated a willingness to try the case on it's front pages (for increased circulation and income, to be sure)?

 

No man should stand to crucify Zimmerman if they have not stood to call O.J. a murderer. The public decided the case against the jury. Would you want to face the public in a murder case....or a jury?

 

So all of you accusing him of being a murderer are standing directly against the fundamental concept this country was founded on. Is that something else you think would be better as "fundamentally changing the country"?

We have discussed different matters in the past on both Health Care issues in America "RomneyCare" remember? On other issues we have agreed to disagree on (my) feelings, despite that I`m a Vietnam era Vet, on what our Founding Fathers intent was with our Second Amendment Rights and any restrictions whatsoever on those "Rights" including the Right to own and possess as Civilians: Mortars, Surface to Air Missiles, Anti-Armor Weapons, Artillery Weapons, and other Weapons normally left for use by Military and Law Enforcement. In the Zimmerman/Martin Case, you seem to feel that Zimmerman had the "Right" to continue to pursue Martin as a Suspect as a "Private Citizen" despite being told not to do so by the Sanford FL Police. A Citizen`s Watch Cop "wannabe" with a legal concealed Pistol permit took it upon himself to act as a Sworn Officer of the Law, a Policeman, and perhaps intended to make a "Citizen Arrest? Using that logic, the Police, The Military, and both local State, and Federal Government can only "suggest" to its Citizens what they are legally allowed to do under existing Law. Don`t like the Law, Legislate to change it. Until then, we are a Nation of Laws and as much I might distrust much of our Governments behavior and its decisions, including those of our Supreme Court, (Citizens United & Striking down Chapter 4 of the Voters Rights Act), other then through our Electoral Process, would your rather entrust our Safety to Citizens Patrols and Militia`s that will act in (our) best interest to "protect" our Rights! What will happen to those that perhaps disagree with their mindset? Mr Zimmerman had the right to do exactly as he did up to the point when he was instructed by the Sanford Police to stop pursuing the (suspect) and leave it to the Police which were already dispatched and on there way to the scene. Had he observed their instructions, there might have been no lose of anyones life and if there was, it would have been on the hands of the Police and not Mr Zimmerman! Florida`s "Stand Your Ground Law" encourages this outcome by allowing one to use (lethal) force to protect one`s self from the threat or simply (perceived) threat of someone having the intent to do you harm. Tombstone Territory and the Old West where everyone feels the need and (right) to strap on a Holster and go on notice that (their) "packing" so act accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have discussed different matters in the past on both Health Care issues in America "RomneyCare" remember? On other issues we have agreed to disagree on (my) feelings, despite that I`m a Vietnam era Vet, on what our Founding Fathers intent was with our Second Amendment Rights and any restrictions whatsoever on those "Rights" including the Right to own and possess as Civilians: Mortars, Surface to Air Missiles, Anti-Armor Weapons, Artillery Weapons, and other Weapons normally left for use by Military and Law Enforcement. In the Zimmerman/Martin Case, you seem to feel that Zimmerman had the "Right" to continue to pursue Martin as a Suspect as a "Private Citizen" despite being told not to do so by the Sanford FL Police. A Citizen`s Watch Cop "wannabe" with a legal concealed Pistol permit took it upon himself to act as a Sworn Officer of the Law, a Policeman, and perhaps intended to make a "Citizen Arrest? Using that logic, the Police, The Military, and both local State, and Federal Government can only "suggest" to its Citizens what they are legally allowed to do under existing Law. Don`t like the Law, Legislate to change it. Until then, we are a Nation of Laws and as much I might distrust much of our Governments behavior and its decisions, including those of our Supreme Court, (Citizens United & Striking down Chapter 4 of the Voters Rights Act), other then through our Electoral Process, would your rather entrust our Safety to Citizens Patrols and Militia`s that will act in (our) best interest to "protect" our Rights! What will happen to those that perhaps disagree with their mindset? Mr Zimmerman had the right to do exactly as he did up to the point when he was instructed by the Sanford Police to stop pursuing the (suspect) and leave it to the Police which were already dispatched and on there way to the scene. Had he observed their instructions, there might have been no lose of anyones life and if there was, it would have been on the hands of the Police and not Mr Zimmerman! Florida`s "Stand Your Ground Law" encourages this outcome by allowing one to use (lethal) force to protect one`s self from the threat or simply (perceived) threat of someone having the intent to do you harm. Tombstone Territory and the Old West where everyone feels the need and (right) to strap on a Holster and go on notice that (their) "packing" so act accordingly.

Whew! A lot to address there.

 

To keep it narrowly focused, please cite the code in Sanford Florida empowering a 911 operator the authority and jurisdiction to compel anyone to obey their instructions and the criminal penalties for violating those instructions.

 

I'll wait here.

Edited by FiredMotorCompany
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have discussed different matters in the past on both Health Care issues in America "RomneyCare" remember? On other issues we have agreed to disagree on (my) feelings, despite that I`m a Vietnam era Vet, on what our Founding Fathers intent was with our Second Amendment Rights and any restrictions whatsoever on those "Rights" including the Right to own and possess as Civilians: Mortars, Surface to Air Missiles, Anti-Armor Weapons, Artillery Weapons, and other Weapons normally left for use by Military and Law Enforcement. In the Zimmerman/Martin Case, you seem to feel that Zimmerman had the "Right" to continue to pursue Martin as a Suspect as a "Private Citizen" despite being told not to do so by the Sanford FL Police. A Citizen`s Watch Cop "wannabe" with a legal concealed Pistol permit took it upon himself to act as a Sworn Officer of the Law, a Policeman, and perhaps intended to make a "Citizen Arrest? Using that logic, the Police, The Military, and both local State, and Federal Government can only "suggest" to its Citizens what they are legally allowed to do under existing Law. Don`t like the Law, Legislate to change it. Until then, we are a Nation of Laws and as much I might distrust much of our Governments behavior and its decisions, including those of our Supreme Court, (Citizens United & Striking down Chapter 4 of the Voters Rights Act), other then through our Electoral Process, would your rather entrust our Safety to Citizens Patrols and Militia`s that will act in (our) best interest to "protect" our Rights! What will happen to those that perhaps disagree with their mindset? Mr Zimmerman had the right to do exactly as he did up to the point when he was instructed by the Sanford Police to stop pursuing the (suspect) and leave it to the Police which were already dispatched and on there way to the scene. Had he observed their instructions, there might have been no lose of anyones life and if there was, it would have been on the hands of the Police and not Mr Zimmerman! Florida`s "Stand Your Ground Law" encourages this outcome by allowing one to use (lethal) force to protect one`s self from the threat or simply (perceived) threat of someone having the intent to do you harm. Tombstone Territory and the Old West where everyone feels the need and (right) to strap on a Holster and go on notice that (their) "packing" so act accordingly.

 

 

 

You reply make you appear naive or just stupid.

Both Zman AND Martin had the same legal right to occupy the same sidewalk / street as anyone else. Its what happens in that space that makes someone a victim or an assailant. You do realize that a 911 phone operator has no law enforcement authority or power to issue directives or directions? In this instance a lot of people are trying to blame the outcome of events on Zman but the evidence shows a different picture. Zman passed a lie detector test the day after the shooting, the lead detective testified he believes Zman's accounts of events. His physical injuries indicate an assault from someone.

 

Martin could have punched Zman in the face and ran away and been alive today and laughing his ass off. Instead he punched him then mounted him ( as testified) and its in this position he was shot and killed.

He was killed during an assault, no more or less.

 

Once again its hard to claim victim status if you are the one on top of another person and killed in that position.

 

Your assumptions are so wrong I hope you are naive vs stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...