Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[CitizenKain]

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

Welcome to the thread. I'm going to guess you haven't been paying much attention. Sorry if I'm wrong, but from my understanding of the whole thing, you've got a bit wrong.

First, he's not self appointed, he was elected.
Second, that being a neighborhood watch person means you want to fight. It doesn't.
Third, that Trayvon, online, pretended to be a gang banger
Fourth, The police noted wounds on Zimmerman.
Fifth (and finally?) He received treatment that night, and sought medical attention the next day. Keep in mind, he was at the police station awaiting the decision on whether they were going to arrest him and charge him for HOURS.

I wasn't aware I needed to keep up a certain number of posts in a thread to appease people like yourself.

So Travyon pretending to be a gang banger online is evidence of him being aggressive, while Zimmerman's history of actually assaulting someone isn't. That is so precious. Are you going to next say that Martin having tattoos is sufficient to him being worthy of being killed? One of them was his Mom's name too. That's pretty hardcore. He also got his picture taken on a horse.

I'm sure he had wounds, you don't attack someone walk away without them. But wounds that are sufficient to stand up to life threatening? If you get hit on the head a lot, like Zimmerman claims, you go to the hospital right away. Not the next day. But, if you don't have those wounds, then you go whenever.

Oh, he sat at the police station for hours after shooting someone? That poor baby.

[OCNewbie]

Originally Posted by WHAMPOM

Five foot away or point-blank, standing, backing away from Zimmerman or horizontal in that desperate struggle for the weapon?

The ballistic evidence that I'm gonna assume they did will probably shed light on which one it was. When they say "very close", instead of just "close range", I take that as pretty much point-blank.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Well that seems a little like splitting hairs to me. I agree that the operator wasn't telling him to follow by saying that, but I think it's certainly reasonable to read it as "okay, we agree he sounds suspicious, keep an eye on him"

From a guy who is making him out to be on drugs, casing houses, etc. Z made him sound as bad as he could, he was "profiling him" in that respect.
If he said I see a kid that I don't know walking on the sidewalk, the dispatcher would have blew him off.

[OCNewbie]

It's peculiar to me how EVERY Zimmerman hater (for lack of a better term) on here is so extremely cynical with their arguments. Not a rational one in the bunch that I've seen.

[Geosurface]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

I could post one far worse from a Z supporter. But I won't. It's far too racist.

I hear ya.

Keep in mind though, just because a black person dying and getting national attention inevitably brings the scummy racists out of the woodwork to cause trouble, doesn't mean all of us who think Z was in the right here are racists too, even a little bit. Also doesn't mean Z himself is.

[Geosurface]

Originally Posted by OCNewbie

It's peculiar to me how EVERY Zimmerman hater (for lack of a better term) on here is so extremely cynical with their arguments. Not a rational one in the bunch that I've seen.

Yea I hate to paint with a broad brush but I've noticed that there is a very high emotion tone to a lot of their posts. They seem like good people, who I am sure I would agree with on just about any other topic... but the posts are just soooo volatile, and they will call someone a racist at the SLIGHTEST opportunity.

They also seem to just have this sort of vague sense that Zimmerman must've been a malicious, murderous racist out for blood. Nothing that comes forward can get them to ease up their view of him and his actions at all.

I mean, on the other hand... a lot of us defending Z acknowledge it's a tragedy, and that Martin was a good kid in many respects. Sure, we point out the thuggery as evidence that viewing him as suspicious isn't totally unreasonable, and that it is at least somewhat believable that he may have indeed attacked Z first.

I'll say it again, I think Martin, although yes he had embraced some thug culture, and thug behavior... and was on a path of delinquency, had a lot of good things about him too. I think he had the capacity to be a very sweet, smart kid. I think he was a bit wayward the last couple of years, but I'd like to think he was going to straighten back out as his mother hoped. He certainly didn't deserve to die, and I wish the gun hadn't been there. I wish it hadn't gone like this.

But when you let your temper explode, and you attack someone... and then you can't even control yourself enough to leave it at a punch, and insist on straddling them and slamming their head on the ground... at that point, I think it's reasonable for your victim to fear for his life and act accordingly. No question about it if you grab at his gun.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by OCNewbie

It's peculiar to me how EVERY Zimmerman hater (for lack of a better term) on here is so extremely cynical with their arguments. Not a rational one in the bunch that I've seen.

I don't hate Zimmerman, I think he showed very bad judgement and made very stupid decisions which caused the death of an innocent (whether you think he was a thug or not) teenager who was not in the act of commiting any crime. He may not get charged with a crime, but I doubt his dreams of becoming part of law enforcement will ever come true. And he'll be living in constant fear of his identity being discovered.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Yea I hate to paint with a broad brush but I've noticed that there is a very high emotion tone to a lot of their posts. They seem like good people, who I am sure I would agree with on just about any other topic... but the posts are just soooo volatile, and they will call someone a racist at the SLIGHTEST opportunity.

They also seem to just have this sort of vague sense that Zimmerman must've been a malicious, murderous racist out for blood. Nothing that comes forward can get them to ease up their view of him and his actions at all.

I mean, on the other hand... a lot of us defending Z acknowledge it's a tragedy, and that Martin was a good kid in many respects. Sure, we point out the thuggery as evidence that viewing him as suspicious isn't totally unreasonable, and that it is at least somewhat believable that he may have indeed attacked Z first.

I'll say it again, I think Martin, although yes he had embraced some thug culture, and thug behavior... and was on a path of delinquency, had a lot of good things about him too. I think he had the capacity to be a very sweet, smart kid. I think he was a bit wayward the last couple of years, but I'd like to think he was going to straighten back out as his mother hoped. He certainly didn't deserve to die, and I wish the gun hadn't been there. I wish it hadn't gone like this.

But when you let your temper explode, and you attack someone... and then you can't even control yourself enough to leave it at a punch, and insist on straddling them and slamming their head on the ground... at that point, I think it's reasonable for your victim to fear for his life and act accordingly. No question about it if you grab at his gun.

Lots of fantasy & emotion in this part. Not being very objective at all, like you "claim" you are.

[Geosurface]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

Lots of fantasy & emotion in this part. Not being very objective at all, like you "claim" you are.

Well that's not fantasy that's Zimmerman's account, such as we have it currently. You may not want to admit it, but Z's account is in fact evidence. He's the best witness we'll ever have to this.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Well that's not fantasy that's Zimmerman's account, such as we have it currently. You may not want to admit it, but Z's account is in fact evidence. He's the best witness we'll ever have to this.

Not necessarily, we don't know all the evidence yet. He may still be charged and face a trial or he may not. But he'll constantly be looking over his shoulder wondering if he's recognized by someone, he'll be doubly scared of any black people he sees, if he's not charged. I'd be almost willing to bet he'll be divorced by his wife in under a year. I would not want to be Zimmerman under either circumstance.

[OCNewbie]

How do you reply to this:

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Well that's not fantasy that's Zimmerman's account, such as we have it currently. You may not want to admit it, but Z's account is in fact evidence. He's the best witness we'll ever have to this.

With this:

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

But he'll constantly be looking over his shoulder wondering if he's recognized by someone, he'll be doubly scared of any black people he sees, if he's not charged. I'd be almost willing to bet he'll be divorced by his wife in under a year. I would not want to be Zimmerman under either circumstance.

?

That's what I was talking about in my other post about being rational, etc. (even though, in my opinion, you're one of the "TM guys" that isn't 100% rhetoric). I don't see how what you're saying has anything to do with what Geo said. Is the above your desired future for GZ? What does he divorcing his wife have to do with what Geo said? /boggled...

[Geosurface]

Yea I was a little puzzled by that reply too but I just sort of shook my head and decided not to analyze it haha.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by OCNewbie

How do you reply to this:



With this:



?

That's what I was talking about in my other post about being rational, etc. (even though, in my opinion, you're one of the "TM guys" that isn't 100% rhetoric). I don't see how what you're saying has anything to do with what Geo said. Is the above your desired future for GZ? What does he divorcing his wife have to do with what Geo said? /boggled...

Thanks for your selective editing, do you work for Fox News? I notice you leave out where I first replied directly to his post with this:

Not necessarily, we don't know all the evidence yet. He may still be charged and face a trial or he may not.

What possible reason would Z have to lie in his testimony? Oh yeah, he could be charged and go to jail. I just did what you guys do, make a rational statement followed by my own specualtion. Now you know how I feel when I read one of your Z supporter posts. And I said she'll probably divorce him, not the other way round.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Yea I was a little puzzled by that reply too but I just sort of shook my head and decided not to analyze it haha.

It should've been obvious to you, you've done it in lots of your posts.

[Pens1566]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Most likely (at least I took it that way) is that because Holder refused to prosecute the Black Panthers for an alleged case of voter intimidation. Pretty blatant and obvious case. Holder got linked. Here's a single story that predates the Z/M case.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...968458430.html

Lots of other stories from a wide variety of outlets.

Everytime that reference comes up, someone needs reminded that is was Bush admin. DOJ officials that recommended it not be sent to trial. Holder not found.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by Pens1566

Everytime that reference comes up, someone needs reminded that is was Bush admin. DOJ officials that recommended it not be sent to trial. Holder not found.

from the opinion article in the Wall Street Journal that I linked.

President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.

How many links do you want that show it was up to Attorney General Holder to prosecute or not?

[umbrella39]

Originally Posted by MH2007

If you'll bear with me, this is where Zimmerman was most likely parked, just north of this address here just before the bend in the road to the right.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1220+T...ida+32771&z=19

His truck was parked next to the mailboxes on Twin Trees right next to the pool/club house some 220 feet to the west and slightly north of where you have it marked.

[soundforbjt]

Originally Posted by monovillage

from the opinion article in the Wall Street Journal that I linked.


How many links do you want that show it was up to Attorney General Holder to prosecute or not?

You mean this Bartle Bull:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080022

Even wikipedia makes no mention of him being a civil rights attorney.

Bull was identified as a "civil rights attorney," "Bobby Kennedy's campaign manager in New York state," "Jimmy Carter's campaign manager in New York state," and a "poll watcher that day." Missing from this identification was the fact that Bull was a McCain "poll watcher that day" who pretty intensely dislikes Obama. And, he's figured out a way to tie the New Black Panthers incident to ACORN.
Bull was on Fox & Friends to help them advance the narrative that the decision to drop most of the voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party and some members was racially motivated. Bull did just that. He said that one of the New Black Panther Party members who was present at the Philadelphia polling station told him, "Now you will see what it means to be ruled by the black man, cracker." He went on to claim that he's never seen anything like this before, even in the 1960s when he was involved in the civil rights movements, a claim he's made in the past and one that even some of his supporters have distanced themselves. The chyron during the segment read: "Race related corruption?"

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by CitizenKain

while Zimmerman's history of actually assaulting someone isn't.

Look it up - charges were dropped.

You ignored the point of my post - you're either ignorant of the facts, or outright pretending they don't exist.

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt

You mean this Bartle Bull:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080022

Even wikipedia makes no mention of him being a civil rights attorney.

You got mediamatters a bought and paid for media outlet for left-wing views.

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-nor...polls-november
with a few pics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bla...imidation_case

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_1...81-504564.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshge...my_people.html

...........who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black.

[Londo_Jowo]

Originally Posted by WHAMPOM

Why are you obeying the rules and not the law? Your double standard is showing.

I'm obeying the terms of my employment, big difference.

[SpatiallyAware]

Edit: tapatalk pocket post

[Geosurface]

I've been trying hard to get a video of the Zimmerman defense team's interview on NBC's Today Show from Saturday with Lester Holt interviewing. It looks as though they appeared again yesterday with David Gregory, found a clip of part of that... but I really want to see the Saturday edition because it's clear there were some good quotes. I saw a little cilp in another vid of it. If anyone finds it, let me know?

[Pens1566]

Originally Posted by monovillage

from the opinion article in the Wall Street Journal that I linked.


How many links do you want that show it was up to Attorney General Holder to prosecute or not?

Uh, that doesn't prove anything you've stated. Dig a little deeper. Find out for yourself who recommended the decision, when it was recommended, and get back to us. It's been debated countless times in this forum already, always with the same result. Yet every so often it pops back up like herpes.

[corwin]

Originally Posted by Londo_Jowo

I'm obeying the terms of my employment, big difference.

Actually your wrong...well if you're referring to Texas at least we did pass the law that you can keep your weapon in your vehicle at work regardless of company policies