The gang-banger Trayvon photos that are being posted on this site are not of 'our' Trayvon who was an A-B student and a member of his school's football team.
Posted on 03/24/2012 6:47:49 AM PDT by tobyhill
Amid the rush of loud outrage and vocal protest from the parents of Trayvon Martin and their supporters the silence of one character in this tragic tale has been deafening: George Zimmerman, the free man who shot Martin and alleges self-defense. His attorney, Craig Sonner, finally spoke out to Anderson Cooper last night, and had few answers but one accusation– his client has a broken nose and a laceration on his skull, and that was “an injury done by Trayvon Martin.”
Sonner noted to Cooper that his client seemed fine save for a “considerable bit of stress” natural to his situation, but admitted that “y conversations have been by telephone.” He did not know where Zimmerman was but assumed he was “still in the area” and hadn’t fled the country. He had surprisingly little to offer Cooper about the facts of the case; asked what Zimmerman had told him about what transpired the night Martin died, he said “he should have made a statement to police at the time, I believe he did,” and said he “did not discuss the details,” and they would be privileged even if he had.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
What is with you guys and this loaded language?
What do you mean "stalker"? Did what Zimmerman did amount to the crime of Stalking under Florida statutes?
Descriptive words matter when calling for someone to be arrested and charged with a crime. Please give evidence that Zimmerman legally stalked someone.
Isn't that the danger of self-government in the first place? Do you think people shouldn't watch their neighborhoods? If they do, shouldn't they be armed? Given that the alternative is an armed monopoly police, is that what you really want?
I live in a rural area. The Sheriff is 10-45 minutes away, depending upon what they're dealing with. If a kid that looked like a gang-banger was on my land, you can bet I certainly do want my neighbors to confront him. Situations vary. That's why we have local standards.
They are NOT police, and have NO right to demand to know if somebody lives there, or ask what their business is. NO right at all.
That depends upon if they are witnessing a crime, doesn't it? At that point, if the crime was trespassing versus trying to steal a car, or breaking into a house and shooting the residents, you think the only thing to do is dial 911? Really? When seconds count...
Was that the Founders' vision? I think not.
There is no end to that kind of thinking, because to keep people safe would require cops all over the place. At that point, there are a lot of cops. They become a political force. They unionize. "Officer safety" then demands TWO cops always together. Oh, and pensions, gotta have pensions, with hazard pay. It's got to the point that in San Jose, CA we have sergeants dragging down $250,000 a year. We did very well in this country without SWAT teams everybloodywhere.
"We" can't have just anybody doing rehab either, or child protection, or... It's bankrupting us Travis.
I suggest for you a nasty little book, HAGA'S LAW (Why Nothing Works and No One Can Fix It, and the More We Try, the Worse It Gets). It'll cure you of this kind of incontinent thinking.
Sorry, but that is the way it is. As I see it. And I am a FL resident with a CCW.
I take it that you think 'the way you see it' applies to everybody, regardless of whether they are urban, suburban, or rural, and regardless of the degree of emergency. Procedure uber alles. That is a bureaucratic tyrant's perspective, a preference for a police state that is unworthy of you. I suggest you rethink your absolutist position.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that "shootings aren't uncommon" in the neighborhood. The fact that Zimmerman called the Police Department doesn't indicate that there are a lot of shootings, or any shootings, in the neighborhoood.
You keep calling Zimmerman a “stalker”. Stalking is defined as a repeated and persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming.
From what I’ve read, this incident was a brief confrontation, and Zimmerman had a legitimate reason to question the kid. Zimmerman was not “stalking”.
LOL! Yes, yes, and yes. You nailed all three of your points.
What evidence is there that Martin initiated force?
I don’t believe Zimmerman gave up the chase and headed back to his Truck.
George voice was very disappointed on tape when 911 tells him to go back to car. He gets out the car after he says “He’s runnin” When he gets out of his car (you can hear the door and he starts walking and the wind starts making that blowing on the phone sound) It was not long after that 911 tells him to stop following him. He should not be far away from his car. It would only take 15 seconds or less to get back to car. The 911 goes on for quite a long time asking a bunch of more information, and you can still hear George walking around huffin and puffin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw
2:09 you can hear george get out and the car door at 2:14. Then you hear the wind blowing sound on the speaker because he’s outside. It only takes til 2:27 seconds for 911 tells him to stop following him. The tape goes on for a long time til 4:10. George is still not back inside car at end of tape. He does not say he will be back inside car sitting, and waiting for police.
911 tells Zimmerman to meet police at mailboxes.
George interjects “have them call me and I will tell them where I will be at.” He does not say that he will be back at his vehicle and doesn’t describe the truck so they know what it looks like.
It comes down to credibility. If Zimmerman’s story isn’t believable and has a lot of holes in it, he will go down.
George is lying when he said he went straight back to his truck after 911 told him to. He was wandering around a long time but it shouldn’t have taken him long to get back to truck.
So he says. According to Martin's girlfriend, Zimmerman started the confrontation.
You're right that Zimmerman did nothing illegal when he ignored the 911 dispatched and continued to follow Martin. It wasn't illegal, but it (and other aspects of the 911 call, in particular his comment to the effect that "these a**holes always get away") is evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind, and makes it seem plausible that Zimmerman started the confrontation, not Martin.
I don’t mean to muddy up the waters here, because I believe you’re making a valid point. The responses to your original posting have some valid points as well, most especially that this was a gated/restricted-access community. That can play a big role in the law in some states, I can’t speak to FL and you’re much better versed in Florida law than I am.
But let’s cut to the chase here, shall we?
ANY time ANY CCW holder shoots a choir boy who happens to be black, there’s a huge potential for this furor. Never mind the facts. Facts can go hang themselves here.
Fact: the CCW carrier here isn’t “white” - if he is, then so is Obama. But that doesn’t matter here, because as the news is now telling it, this guy was just short of admission to the Klan. I guess since Robert Byrd has passed on, the Klan has relaxed admission requirements.
Fact: The black yute wasn’t where he was supposed to be. While we cannot postulate exactly where he was supposed to be, we can definitively say that he wasn’t supposed to be, and that was on the grounds of this community.
Fact: The CCW carrier had reason to call 911 before the lethal engagement started. Additional fact: The 911 operator didn’t command him to not follow, only said that he didn’t “need” to do that. That’s not terribly imperative language there.
Fact which is in contest, according to the color of the observer’s skin: The black yute wasn’t looking for his church hymnal that he dropped earlier in the neighborhood while returning from Bible Study.
There have been cases I’ve seen where a homeowner bags a perp *in his house* and the mother is on TV the next day, wailing about “what a good boy he was” and so on. The relatives come out of the woodwork, all claiming that the “boy was turning his life around.” It is all I can do to restrain myself from wanting to scream at the TV “Did you not take notice of the fact that this ‘good’ boy broke into someone’s house?”
You’ve heard it before too, I’m sure.This is the sign of a truly diseased culture in which we now live, wherein a significant segment of our society believes that they’re above the law. Sometime, check out how many 1040’s the IRS gets wherein the filer is claiming to not have to pay taxes as part of “reparations for slavery.” Go ahead, check it out. Don’t believe me:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-02-08.pdf
The cure for this is to hammer them flat with the power of the law and prove to them that “no, you’re not so terribly special.” But that’s not happening in the current environment. What is sordid and worse is that their behavior is actually being encouraged by the highest office holders in the land.
I’m not saying that Zimmerman was justified in his actions that put him into a situation where lethal force was employed, much less that he took a high-IQ route to arrive at this situation. All I’m saying is that the law is no longer color blind WRT perps here, and that’s a fact for both CCW holders AND COPS. A CCW holder doesn’t need to put himself out on the very thin edge of the law as Zimmerman did to have The Justice Brothers standing on his doorstep the next week, agitating for the feds to become involved.
Now, given your background and ability to assess no-crap-for-real threats, I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is a physically (as well as legally) stupid thing to put oneself into the position into the situation Zimmerman did. No way I’d have done what he did, because, quite frankly, no one is paying me to do that and I’m not stupid enough to volunteer my physical safety to take on that risk for something outside my home.
He never said he went in the truck, just to the truck. And if you ran somewhere, it would take you longer to walk back where you came from, especially if out of breath. After all, he was a fat slob/stalker/deadbeat according to some of the posters here.
If I was wrong, I was wrong.
You said the law allows you to punch someone in the face for asking a question. Now prove that assertion by citing the relevant Statute or STFU.
Have a nice day.
If I was wrong, I was wrong.
I don’t believe Zimmerman gave up the chase and headed back to his truck either.
I would have taken him longer than 20 seconds to run up the pathway, around the corner, and past a number of apartments to arrive at 2831 Retreat View Circle where the shooting occured..
FIREARM, not forearm. Oops...
Damn you spell check!
no way. it wouldn’t take longer than 15-20 seconds to get back to truck (at most), even for an obese person. The attack would’ve been on the tape!
How did he get that far away from his truck? Trayvon dragged him away from his truck? The screaming and scuffle started behind houses, not at his truck. ear witness testimony.
The gang-banger Trayvon photos that are being posted on this site are not of 'our' Trayvon who was an A-B student and a member of his school's football team.
Actually, you're wrong. Under Florida law, the aggressor in a confrontation cannot then use deadly force to defend themself in that confrontation (except in very limited circumstances). Moreover, someone can be an aggressor for these purposes without actually throwing the first punch - all they have to do is "provoke" the use of force against themself, and they cannot assert a "self defense" defense.
All that must be proven is that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury from an attack by Martin.
You missed a word, and an important one at that.
That’s a pop warner football pick, not high school, try again
That is a four year old photo.
Why can’t you be honest?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.