Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

[09jisaac]

Although I long suspected it, you've leaped headfirst into the category of "police apologists".

It is equally self-evident that the other "contempt of cop charge", disturbing the peace, necessarily entails having actually done so.

Especially when the charges are dropped afterwards, amirite?

It is hard not to. We, sometimes, assume that the media is going to report the cold hard facts. To much media hype if everything nowadays.

"Doing nothing wrong", except, of course, providing Zimmerman with justification for a rightful self-defense charge by slamming his head into the ground after he had already stopped any possible threat be being on top of a helpless (until he drew the gun) Zimmerman.

Assuming, of course, the police reports are accurate.

Remember, HankT, the claim to self-defense was not predicated on Martin's prior status of being "suspicious" (which I agree was likely unfounded), but by his subsequent actions.

Two wrongs never make a right. Zimmerman's stupidity can never justify Martin's behavior in the moments before he was shot.

We also don't know this. I believe that Z was stupid for doing what he did, but I do believe that he did have a cause for self defense. So I am not saying you are wrong, because I do hope that you are right.

And you are right about M being suspicious. No matter Z's reason to approach M, Z should still have the right to self defense. I am suspicious when someone follows me, but that does not give me the right to start beating their face in (I am not saying M was).

 

[jbone]

I'll let you have the last word, if you like.

Two words: On second thought I best not I'd be banned fron the site.

This is the last post I will make on this tangent, as it's clear the forum as a whole is content to allow the race issue to take center stage where it does not belong. Who am I to argue?

For the record, I don't actually believe that you are a racist. Neither do I disbelieve it. Only you can know whether you are.

As you might have gathered had you attempted to understand my numerous posts on the subject, I was merely calling you a racist by the same standard that you and Al Sharpton wield the phrase. As it happens, I do not find this standard to be valid. Perhaps I should have been more clear on that point.

Frankly, I cannot know whether Al Sharpton is a racist either. I don't really pay much attention to what the man says anyway; it neither concerns nor effects me.

I was merely (clearly ham-handedly) trying to point out that, by the same standard you levy the claim against Sharpton, you are also guilty. That is to say, you are guilty of the same offense of which he is, that being allowing the discussion of an issue for which race is irrelevant to focus on race, race-baiting, and claims of racism.

I was hoping to encourage you to let it drop. Clearly, my methods were beyond flawed, as you are now only reinforced in your view. For this error I am quite regretful. Oh well. It is futile to attempt to convince those set in their ways, as you and Al Sharpton clearly are in the arena of race relations. I must be content with ignoring your ramblings on the subject of race, as I do his. I would prefer that race become an issue of the past. Clearly, we as a people are not ready for that. For this, I accept that Al Sharpton is as much to blame as anybody else, yourself included.

I'll let you have the last word, if you like.

How very very clever to end your participation and part in the "tangent" in this fashion. You have have constructed it in such a way that any response makes me the aggressor. That's brilliant, and funny!

A thug with a sharpened vocabulary throughout their part in the tangent. I'm a simple blue collar guy with a little AAS, and way too old to use it, and fail to write as eloquently as you. But smart enough to recognize radical tactics when I encounter.
You appearance of academia, and extended vocabulary gives you the edge, the ability to twist the matter as if I started it all, how cowardly, take some of the responsibility. I commend you on your strive of knowledge, and self improvement through higher education, but share that education with a bit of ethical behavior, or it's all for nothing. Well unless you truly are a leftie!

I presented facts, and that racism does heavily entrench this case. People have gone to great lengths to unnecessarily make race an over the top issue here. And others like yourself have gone to great lengths to attack without cause; such as when one makes factual statement that rubs you the wrong way.

I bowed out of our equal parts in the "tangent" before you posted the above, but you still saw fit to entice further argument with another post, along with fabricating "was hoping to encourage you to let it drop". I had already dropped it dummy, (Sorry the Blue Collar in me) you seem to thrive on continual argument. Again cowardly, more twisting of words in gaining support and of shifting responsibility of your own actions. Clever. But still an out of the closet racist by your own Freudian slip.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Now that HankT is back can we get Tomahawk back too?

What was his tag line?.....one step ahead of HankT....?

 

[Stanley]

... you seem to thrive on continual argument. ...[/FONT][/COLOR]

How ironic...

 

[marshaul]

Now that HankT is back can we get Tomahawk back too?

What was his tag line?.....one step ahead of HankT....?

lol, I was thinking the same thing. One of my favorite posters from the old school OCDO.

Had lunch with the gentleman once (Citizen was there, too). I spilled my soda like a fool, but I don't think anybody noticed my clumsiness. We did have the opportunity to explain to a young woman all about my California Open Carry "Police have no duty to protect" shirt.

 

[wrightme]

The history which has been reported on so far does indeed indicate a pattern or propensity on the part of of George Zimmerman for violence and or disregard for the law.

1. The "resist" charge of 2005 was reported as: "resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer." That seems pretty self-evident that some violence was involved. Apparently drinking was involved, too, since GZ went through an alcohol education program as a result of the arrest. (The charge was subsequently reduced to "resisting arrest without violence.")

2. The restraining order obtained in 2005 by Veronica Zuazo, his ex-fiancee,after asking him to leave her home andcalling 911 on him, alleged that he "He grew upset, snatching her cellphone away from her, pushing her, she said. A pushing match ensued and her dog jumped up and bit him on the cheek."

3. It has been reported that Zimmerman was fired from a security job for "being too aggressive." An anonymous co-worker says "He had a temper and he became a liability," describing an incident where GZ, in a state of "pure rage," picked up a woman and threw her to the ground, injuring her.

Seems to me that there is at least some support for George Zimmerman being an explosive/angry violent guy who liked being in charge and liked pushing people around.

And that was without a firearm.

The full story of his incident on February 26 with Trayvon Martin hasn't been told yet. There are some crucial details missing. We don't know if he has actually committed a crime. And we don't know if he will be charged.

But it's clear that George Zimmerman was a goof with a gun that February 26th night, unnecessarily precipitating a sequence of events that resulted in a dead 17 year old who was "suspicious" to GZ but who was doing nothing wrong.

Sooo.....

To you, pushing someone is 'indicative of a history of violence?'

I must say one thing..



WOW

 

[wrightme]

And you are right about M being suspicious. No matter Z's reason to approach M, Z should still have the right to self defense. I am suspicious when someone follows me, but that does not give me the right to start beating their face in (I am not saying M was).

It isn't known which person approached the other. According to Z, M approached him, initiating the actual direct contact, not the other way around.

And yes, the act of approaching another person does not impair the right to self defense. And, under SYG statute, neither does staying at that location after there IS confrontation.

 

[Daylen]

So, uhm, do you think the co-worker's account is untrue?

Red Herring.

Called.

 

[Superlite27]

Tangential arguments, irrellevant postulating......

The posting of a topic followed by numerous replies is very aptly named a "thread" in that, sooner or later, it unravels and becomes a tangled, useless mess.

Bird's nest.

Called.

 

[BaconMan]

Got a more specific link? I can't find any recordings on that site.

Specifically, I have yet to hear the second 911 tape.

If you go onto the link then hit the Trayvon Martin Investigation link and there are eight 9-1-1 calls listed....I guess there are videos too, but I have not seen those....:dude:

 

[slowfiveoh]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-thug-drug-dealing-thief-and-wannabe-gangsta/

 

[Grapeshot]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-thug-drug-dealing-thief-and-wannabe-gangsta/

That's really interesting slowfiveoh, because I was just posting the same link on another thread at the same time. My complaint in all of this is the lack of integrity that the media has shown.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?101383-Ung-vs-Zimmerman&p=1731081#post1731081

My suggestion to all here: Be informed and be responsible. Make no rash judgements - the truth will general rise to the top.

 

[slowfiveoh]

That's really interesting slowfiveoh, because I was just posting the same link on another thread at the same time. My complaint in all of this is the lack of integrity that the media has shown.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?101383-Ung-vs-Zimmerman&p=1731081#post1731081

My suggestion to all here: Be informed and be responsible. Make no rash judgements - the truth will general rise to the top.

If you go back and look at that thread, I actually posted it a full hour before you arrived at the thread. It's all good though, I actually prefer it's posted more than once.

Information needs to get out there.

 

[Grapeshot]

If you go back and look at that thread, I actually posted it a full hour before you arrived at the thread. It's all good though, I actually prefer it's posted more than once.

Information needs to get out there.

Here I thought that I had done my own homework, only to find that I hadn't read the entire assignment

I do completely agree that the media bias needs to be exposed - they not only contribute to the problem, but sometimes are the root cause of the problem. They have a great/grave responsibility to report accurately and not mislead the public, not fan the flames in a rush to judgement in this case.

 

[rscottie]

Media Bias?

Here I thought that I had done my own homework, only to find that I hadn't read the entire assignment

I do completely agree that the media bias needs to be exposed - they not only contribute to the problem, but sometimes are the root cause of the problem. They have a great/grave responsibility to report accurately and not mislead the public, not fan the flames in a rush to judgement in this case.

Here is a nice example of NBC and the use of selective editing:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-...o-selective-editing-of-zimmerman-police-tape/

 

[slowfiveoh]

Nevermind. Someone got it covered.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Reade a little gem this morning refuting Zimmerman's statement he was the one screaming for help:

"
His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.
Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.
Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story. ...


After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.
"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.
"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.
Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal interest in the technology "has a history of nearly 70 years.""

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

 

[Grapeshot]

Reade a little gem this morning refuting Zimmerman's statement he was the one screaming for help:

Refuting?

Inconclusive might be more accurate.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Refuting?

Inconclusive might be more accurate.

Sorry, they determined it was, likely, not Zimmerman. Since they don't have the sample of Trayvon, well, we might never know.

I am wondering if Zimmerman can dig himself out of the hole he has dug. If not, he is the type that would commit suicide as an alternative to most of his life in prison.

I would recommend to Zimmerman, that he not read what people have to state about the shooting. All of us are armchair quarterbacks.

 

[Grapeshot]

Sorry, they determined it was, likely, not Zimmerman. Since they don't have the sample of Trayvon, well, we might never know.

I am wondering if Zimmerman can dig himself out of the hole he has dug. If not, he is the type that would commit suicide as an alternative to most of his life in prison.

I would recommend to Zimmerman, that he not read what people have to state about the shooting. All of us are armchair quarterbacks.

That is in part why it is inconclusive.

You make a make a rather quantam leap there on several fronts, I'd say.