patrick.net

that's an odd position you guys have taken ... it is now "Zimmerman wasn't harmed enough to defend himself from the suspect!" How interesting. The police that responded said he was beat up and bleeding .... but the blood thirsty race-baitors want to add fuel to the flames of hate ... progressivism at full stride folks, nothing more.

Zimmerman carried out his duty as a citizen. I would rather live in a neighborhood full of Zimmerman's than a 'hood full of 17 year old drop out thugs that prowel around in the dark. But hey, that's just me.

marcus says

I think we all know, that if he didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have confronted the kid. How can it not be murder ?

really? How is it "we all know" that? I don't feel that is true at all. Unless "we all" read minds. After this, lets play the "what if" game. You know, like, "what if" Zimmerman was a golden gloves fighter, then he would have whipped the kids ass, held him for police, and been the vicitm of a drive-by a few days later (yes, that exact same thing has happened a few times, so go ahead and argue against it). I suspect that you have never, not once, defended yourself or someone else against being harmed or victimized. It is not fun, planned, or satisfying, but it is worth doing. Zimmerman was doing a good deed. The suspect was prowling around in the dark. If you lived next door to Zimmerman, and walked outside at night, who would you rather find at the end of your walkway? Lord Barry's own grandma would rather find Zimmerman walking his beat than a 17 year old negro prowler. Right? So would you.

Bap33 says

that's an odd position you guys have taken ... it is now "Zimmerman wasn't harmed enough to defend himself from the suspect!" How interesting. The police that responded said he was beat up and bleeding .... but the blood thirsty race-baitors want to add fuel to the flames of hate ... progressivism at full stride folks, nothing more.

Yeah, why should we trust our lying eyes!

Dan8267 says

Shooter George Zimmerman appears uninjured in police video on night of shooting

Dan8267 says

The primary cause of violent crime is poverty. Eliminate poverty and violent crime will be rare.

True, true, eliminating poverty would be the most effective way of reducing crime (violent or otherwise).

leoj707 says

True, true, eliminating poverty would be the most effective way of reducing crime (violent or otherwise).

Yeah, this Zimmerman guy would've be at work, rather than looking out for trouble.

Bap33 says

does teen mothers happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does dropping out happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does grandma have to raise the grandkids becasue Shaneeskra just can't seem to stay off the pipe, in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

leoj707 says

eliminating poverty would be the most effective way of reducing crime (violent or otherwise).

Poverty is a crime .

There is a cause for this poverty; and, if you trace it down, you will find its root in a primary injustice. Look over the world to-day—poverty everywhere. The cause must be a common one. You cannot attribute it to the tariff, or to the form of government, or to this thing or to that in which nations differ; because, as deep poverty is common to them all the cause that produces it must be a common cause. What is that common cause? There is one sufficient cause that is common to all nations; and that is the appropriation as the property of some of that natural element on which and from which all must live. - Henry George.

Having been both a teenage "prowler" (with 2-3ish school suspensions) and a 20 something with a license to carry a concealed weapon I have been somewhat on the fence about this situation.

The funny thing (weird, not haha) about the whole debate on the "stand your ground" law is that in any state you can legally shoot and kill someone who you feel threatens you or others. Usually when it comes to that "retreat" is not an option. If either Zimmerman's tale is true or the Trayvon boosters version of events is true it does not seem like "stand your ground" plays a role. However, I am not too familiar with the "stand your ground" laws so I am not sure what they add to this.

Anyway, as the evidence comes in I am increasingly convinced that Zimmerman should be arrested for at least manslaughter.

Is Zimmerman a racist? Probably, based on the way he seemed to profile people, but the 911 call does not seem to include a racist slur. I finally got around to actually listening to it last night, and any claims of a racist slur are silly.

Is Zimmerman's version of events true? No. Clearly from the police security footage Zimmerman was not damaged in anyway close to what he and his lawyer described. Having been on both-ends of repeated head-blows resulting in broken noses and blood loss they leave clear marks. A broken nose needs to be set if you don't want it to look like putty. Setting your own nose is not something you do on your own unless you are the type of person who cauterizes your own wounds with gun powder or sews them up with a fishhook and line.

Also, this may come as a shock to some, but police do indeed lie in reports in order to keep things tidy.

1st degree Murder? Very unlikely. Murder in the 1st degree is a premeditate plan to kill someone, usually someone you already know. In order to prove 1st degree, one would have to show that Zimmerman planned for killing someone -- anyone -- that night. That is not only very difficult to prove, but also unlikely that he even planned on killing Trayvon after seeing him.

With Zimmerman's history of violence it seems likely that he stalked Trayvon then bullied him provoking a fight.

Yes, so far I am more or less going to ignore the eye witness accounts. It was dark, the accounts are contradictory and eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

leoj707 says

eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

leoj707 says

Clearly from the police security footage Zimmerman was not damaged in anyway close to what he and his lawyer described.

let me quess .... your eyes work better than anyone who backs up Zimmerman? Or, is your eye whitnessing just better because you didn't have to make a really important choice in a very tense situation? Cmon!! You can't have it both ways. You cant suggest visually gathered info is crap and then base your position on visually gathered info!!! Arggg!!!

leoj707 says

Bap33 says

does teen mothers happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does dropping out happen much in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

Bap33 says

does grandma have to raise the grandkids becasue Shaneeskra just can't seem to stay off the pipe, in rich hoods?

Yes, but not at the same rate as in a poor neighborhood.

I did not ask , "does it happen ever?" I asked, "does it happen much?" (I used "much" to match the previous poster, but should have went with "alot"). My bad.

http://www.9BMy3k_JMio

Bap33 says

let me quess .... your eyes work better than anyone who backs up Zimmerman? Or, is your eye whitnessing just better because you didn't have to make a really important choice in a very tense situation?

Are you saying that a video recording makes anyone viewing the recording an "eye witness"?

C'mon!!!

Bap33 says

You cant suggest visually gathered info is crap and then base your position on visually gathered info!!!

Apples and oranges.

Studies have show that "visually gathered" evidence from and "eye witness" then verbally relayed to others is unreliable. Even "flash bulb" memory is known to be fallible.

While video can be edited, it is a recording of an event unaffected by human bias, memory error and/or lies. Anyone can view it and see what actually happened.

Are you saying that on the video you see a man that has suffered from a bleeding wound on the back of his head, caused by blunt trauma, as well as a broken and bloody nose?

Bap33 says

I did not ask , "does it happen ever?" I asked, "does it happen much?" (I used "much" to match the previous poster, but should have went with "alot"). My bad.

OK, fair enough.

Zimmerman looked hunky-dory to me. Throughout, you can see his face, no broken nose there. At the tail end of the video, you can see about 2/3 of the back of his head, no visible damage, and with his buzzcut, it would be hard to miss.

Nice job with Atkins or 90X though, or he lost all his baby fat since his first mugshot years ago.

The nose may have been suspected to be broken, and if it was not broken it would stop bleeding pretty easily, and thus no bloody face for those on the Prowler's "side" to cheer about. Have none of you ever been popped in the snoz? It blurs your vision and hurts like a dickens, even without breakage. And my point stands, you feel Zimmerrman needed to be victimized to a higher degree BEFORE he could defend himself, and that is nonsense. THe whole idea of personal safety is to not be a victim. Geeez.

Bap33 says

The nose may have been suspected to be broken, and if it was not broken it would stop bleeding pretty easily, and thus no bloody face for those on the Prowler's "side" to cheer about.

Bap you are really starting to stretch here. A blow to the nose strong enough to cause bleeding, and be suspected of being broken is going to be accompanied with heavy swelling and one probably two black eyes.

Broken noses are usually pretty easy to identify. Massive swelling is one thing that can make a non-broken nose look broken.

It is very clear that Zimmerman lied about a life threatening assault before he chose to kill Trayvon. That really makes me question his entire story.

I doubt there is any law in Florida that allows one to kill in self-defense after pursuing, harassing, and bullying someone leads to a physical altercation. That scenario seems to be more consistent with the evidence, than Zimmerman's story.

Bap33 says

you feel Zimmerrman needed to be victimized to a higher degree BEFORE he could defend himself, and that is nonsense. THe whole idea of personal safety is to not be a victim.

No, I feel like Zimmerman was probably never "victimized". He seems to have instigated the situation.

I am all for personal safety and victims using deadly force when necessary. There are plenty of incidences where people have used guns/knives/fists to deter or kill aggressors. That's great, I for one would prefer that there were less victims in this world. However, Zimmerman does not appear to be one of those people.

leoj707 says

after pursuing, harassing, and bullying someone leads to a physical altercation.

well ... at least you are fair and balanced, using only hard facts for your position and zero guessing.

leoj707 says

No, I feel like Zimmerman was probably never "victimized". He seems to have instigated the situation.

how do you place the prowler out in the night doing his prowling ... while a neighborhood watchmen is doing his watching .... and somehow make the watchmen the instigator?? That is right, in Oppositeville.

Bap33 says

leoj707 says

after pursuing, harassing, and bullying someone leads to a physical altercation.

well ... at least you are fair and balanced, using only hard facts for your position and zero guessing.

Oh, no in this situation there is more guessing than not, but what facts there are do not support Zimmerman's story. They do however seem to indicate the story I mentioned.

Dude .. have you looked at a street map that shows the Prowlers home base, the store he was going to or from (no vid yet), and Zimmerman's neighborhood? I suggest you make that effort, as it blows the Prowlers claims apart in a HUGE way. There will soon be some other location given by the Prowlers family to cover his location.

Why no comment on the actions of the 18 year old in the vid I posted?

Bap33 says

Prowlers

What is Prowling? If it's to go to the store, then I'm about to Prowl for Camel Filters and some half n' half.

Bap33 says

it is now "Zimmerman wasn't harmed enough to defend himself from the suspect!"

That's a strawman argument. We're not saying a person has to be harmed X amount before defending himself. The article states quote "The security camera footage shot inside the police station directly contradicts a police report written that night." and continues that the video also contradicts the statements to the press by Zimmerman's attorney. Then the article goes into detail about how.

Look, I know you want Zimmerman to be found innocent, but the evidence shows guilt. If you ignore all evidence that shows guilt, then you are not exactly an unbiased judge.

thunderlips11 says

Bap33 says

Prowlers

What is Prowling?

Prowling is walking while black. It's just as illegal as driving while black.

leoj707 says

He seems to have instigated the situation.

Exactly, and this is why the stand-your-ground law cannot apply. Think about it.

Image that some guy, let's call him Punchy McAsshole, decided that he wanted to get into a bar fight. So he walks up to some random guy, calls his girl a whore, and then punches the guy. The guy, let's call him Average Joe, punches back several times.

Now, Punchy McAsshole feels that his life is in danger so he pulls out a gun and shoots Average Joe. Let's say Punchy legitimately fears for his life because he realized he picked a fight with the wrong guy. Should Punchy be held liable for killing Joe? Of course, he should. Punchy created the situation. He's not a victim.

Oh, and this allegory applies regardless of the skin tone or sexual orientation of any of the players.

Bap33 says

Prowlers

Yeah, what thunderlips said.

Bap33 says

have you looked at a street map that shows the Prowlers home base, the store he was going to or from (no vid yet), and Zimmerman's neighborhood? I suggest you make that effort, as it blows the Prowlers claims apart in a HUGE way.

Have you ever walked much? I walk a lot, and often take various routes that are not always the most direct. Often when on the phone -- as was Trayvon -- I will go quite a bit out of my way to finish the conversation.

Anyway, I will look at the maps when I have time.

Bap33 says

Why no comment on the actions of the 18 year old in the vid I posted?

Probably because it is entirely unrelated to the thread. Perhaps if it was a video of Trayvon doing the attacking that would be relevant.

BTW, any videos of when Zimmerman attacked that cop? Or, how about a video of the altercation that prompted Zimmerman's fiance to file domestic abuse charges against Zimmerman? Ether one of those videos would also be relevant.

I think the difference between the pro-Zimmerman group and the pro-Martin group can be summed up as this:

If the skin color of the two people were exchanged, the pro-Martin group would still call for the arrest of black Zimmerman for the killing of white Martin, and so would the pro-Zimmerman group.

Zimmerman is not white, but he is not negro. ANd color don't come into play until you are asked to describe a suspected powler.

Are you folks suggesting that all of the crime and suspects in that area that matched this situation have no merit on how the police, or Zimmerman conducted themselves?? Why would you not expect the suspected prowler to not take steps to avoid being wrongly suspected to be one of those that have been doing the crimes in that area????? No need for behavior modification to fit in by anyone that is negro? Is that it? Only everyone else must adjust to survive in the streets the thugs around us control?? CMon man, that makes no sense.

Who in their right mind wants to see anyone innocent or harmless, dead. 17 or 37 ... black or brown or yellow .... male or female .... old or fetus. More negro babies die from abortions than they do from ZImmermans, so place the correct amount of attention where it is needed, if saving innocent, harmless, lives is your desire.

thunderlips11 says

I have a feeling Zimmerman is an unemployed, lost, wanna be tough guy, thinks he's smarter than he is, kind of dude.

My understanding is that Zimmerman was in the process of applying to become a cop.

leoj707 says

Oh, yeah and I was unaware that Trayvon was shot in the back. I don't think that any self defense law allows you to shoot someone in the back.

Damn, I didn't know that either. That does make it look pretty much like it has to be murder not manslaughter. And it's not defense when you shoot someone in the back.

If you can shoot someone in the back, you can simply point the gun at him to ensure your own defense. Furthermore, if you wanted to stop someone from fleeing, you could shoot him in the leg instead of where his vital organs are. I can't see how Zimmerman could have had any other intention but to kill Martin if he shot him in the back. And certainly, it wasn't in defense.

leoj707 says

My understanding is that Zimmerman was in the process of applying to become a cop.

I think he applied for a "Ride-Along" Program a few years ago, kind of a Citizens on Patrol type deal. EDIT: There was a quote from a neighbor back in Virginia that Zimmerman asked him for a recommendation to apply for a LEO academy, but every Academy contacted by the media has no record of an application. Also, we know of arrests for DV and Assaulting a Cop, but those records are sealed... and maybe there are expunged records on Zimmerman also. His Dad, after all, was a Magistrate and would be aware of the importance of doing everything legally possible to cover up "negative records".

This could also be why no Police Agency accepted him - I believe many Academies can reject applicants with sealed arrest or conviction records.

The other angle that's not getting much exploration is the role of the Police Chief, State Prosecutor, and possibly the dad, Robert Zimmerman, former VA Magistrate Judge.

It appears the first two took a great interest in the case right away, and were the ones who made the call not to charge Zimmerman - against the wishes of the homicide detective.

A source with knowledge of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin tells theGrio that it was then Sanford police chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O'Connor, the investigations supervisor, who made the decision to release George Zimmerman on the night of February 26th, after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger -- in person.

Wolfinger's presence at the scene or at the police department in the night of a shooting would be unusual, according to the source. On a typical case, police contact the state attorney's office and speak with an on duty assistant state attorney; they either discuss the matter by phone or the on duty assistant state attorney comes to the crime scene - but rarely the state attorney him or herself.

http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/source-sanford-police-chief-state-attorney-made-zimmerman-no-charge-call-in-person.php#46882946

Sanford is not an exclusive area, it is a working/middle class area and has frequent violent incidents. This isn't some small town a la Alice's Restaurant where the worst thing in 20 years was garbage being dumped illegally, and the cops and prosecutor didn't know how to handle it.

There's also reports that the Police, with the Chief present at the scene and possibly the Prosecutor as well, didn't take pictures of Zimmerman's alleged injuries nor a bloody t-shirt that may have been soaked in both DNA and gunpowder residue (which could establish at what range Trey was shot at) - not to mention the splatter pattern.

Now the case has been assigned away from the original State Prosecutor who asked the Governor to reassign the case, and the Chief of Police has also resigned.

Something fishy in Denmark.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, if you wanted to stop someone from fleeing, you could shoot him in the leg instead of where his vital organs are. I can't see how Zimmerman could have had any other intention but to kill Martin if he shot him in the back. And certainly, it wasn't in defense.

When one fires a gun at another living thing there is no other intent but to kill. When discharged a gun is not a tool to capture or simply stop someone.

There are a few issues with “shooting for the legs”:
1. You would be charged with attempted murder. It would be nearly impossible to prove that you were not trying to kill. Perhaps if you were to show all the silhouettes of legs you have used for target practice at the range, it would help your case.

2. Legs are hard to hit; running legs even harder. If the bullet does not hit the target it goes somewhere else. Perhaps a neighbor’s home. If you are going to shoot you should make every effort to hit your intended target. The same goes for trying to make head shots. Aim for center of mass.

3. The leg is not a “safe” place to be shot. A hit that tears open the femoral artery will quickly kill someone.

4. As we have seen in the current case in question, dead men tell no tales. Things go much easier for you when there is only one side of the story. Say you actually have a legitimate reason for shooting someone in the back…

While fulfilling your honorable neighborhood watch duty for the greater good of your community you see a semi-obese 40 something white man, wearing a hoodie, prowling around your street. You approach the man politely asking him what business brings him to your part of town.

He yells back in your face, “DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM?"

“uhh… no…”, you nervously reply, taking a step backward.

“WELL YOU DO NOW”, he yells as... *WHAM* with a powerful blow he shoves you to the ground with such force the back of your head does a little bounce off the asphalt.

Heart pounding and head reeling from the jolt, through tear filled eyes you see him turn and move towards your house. He gives you a slight chuckle over his shoulder, “I have been prowling around your house for a month. You know that cleaver you keep in your kitchen drawer, next to your sink?”

You feel a stone of fear in your throat as realization sets in. Your mind clears enough for you to remember ‘the gun’. The swimming in your head begins to subside as you fumble in your coat pocket.

He breaks into an awkward loping gait -- laughing, “Before you can even get to your front lawn, I will have killed one of your sleeping family members.”

You manage to tug the gun free and pull yourself to a wobbly knee. You quickly raise your gun, and take aim.

If you shoot for his legs, turn to page 64

If you shoot for his back, turn to page 27

Bap33 says

well ... at least you are fair and balanced, using only hard facts for your position and zero guessing

Bap33 says

The suspect was prowling around in the dark.

Bap33 says

how do you place the prowler out in the night doing his prowling

Bap33 says

thus no bloody face for those on the Prowler's "side" to cheer about

Bap33 says

blows the Prowlers claims apart in a HUGE way

Bap33 says

the Prowlers family

Dan8267 says

If convicted, Zimmerman faces a minimum of 25 years in prison. I'm not sure, but I think he might even be eligible for life for voluntary manslaughter under this law.

Gosh, I wonder whether any of his neighbors who know him well would be willing to lie for him, to prevent him from having to go to jail for 25 years.

leoj707 says

Dan8267 says

The primary cause of violent crime is poverty. Eliminate poverty and violent crime will be rare.

True, true, eliminating poverty would be the most effective way of reducing crime (violent or otherwise).

Vlad the Impaler had a unique method of eliminating poverty. He invited all of the poor to attend a giant feast in a special banquet hall he commissioned to fit the masses. Once all of the guests were comfortably seated inside, he had his troops lock everyone in and then burned the place to the ground.

Personally, I find it appalling that Vlad tried to eliminate poverty and not increase it.

leoj707 says

The funny thing (weird, not haha) about the whole debate on the "stand your ground" law is that in any state you can legally shoot and kill someone who you feel threatens you or others. Usually when it comes to that "retreat" is not an option. If either Zimmerman's tale is true or the Trayvon boosters version of events is true it does not seem like "stand your ground" plays a role. However, I am not too familiar with the "stand your ground" laws so I am not sure what they add to this.

not that long ago, you had a lady kill an intruder, this was in Oklahoma. She did stand her ground.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/firstatfour/story?section=firstatfour&id=8490359

Teen mom shoots intruder while on phone with 911

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A new mother from Oklahoma who shot and killed an intruder while on the phone with 911 said the dispatcher told her she couldn't shoot until the man broke into her home.

Her lawyer says she had every right to shoot the intruder and so far police agree.

"I wouldn't have done it but it was my son, gotta protect him," said Sarah McKinley.

The 18-year-old McKinley takes maternal instinct to a whole new level.

"I walked over and got the 12 gauge, went in the bedroom and got the pistol, put the bottle in his mouth then I called 911," she said.

McKinley admits she shot and killed a man to protect her three month old son.

On New Year's Eve, police say two men, one armed with a 12-inch hunting knife tried to break into her home near Oklahoma City.

McKinley says she thought one of the men had been stalking her.

"He was from door to door trying to bust in...They said I couldn't shoot him till he came in the door," she adds.

The dispatcher is heard on the tapes saying "I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby."

The moment the intruder stepped inside, McKinley fired.

.

thomas.wong1986 says

She did stand her ground.

Yes, I remember this story, and she did the right thing. However, technically she did retreat and did everything in her power to avoid the confrontation.

Any "stand your ground" law would not have any bearing her situation.

It was a reasonable assumption by the shooter that the vic may be a thief. He was on foot, it was night, and there had been thieves in this area which is why they established a neighborhood watch in the FIRST place.
Witnesses and cops say that the vic attacked the shooter.
In Florida you can be legally shot if you attack someone.
The popular pictures of the vic are out of date, he's 6'2" plays football and was a reprobate student with multiple suspensions. His twitter account shows him flipping the bird, wearing gangster gold teeth, and calling himself a "no limit nigga".
Maybe you guys didn't attend a high school where guys like Tray terrorized people and were generally incorrigible.
This exact thing could happen also in Vermont, Arizona, Texas and other concealed carry states.

clambo says

Witnesses and cops say that the vic attacked the shooter.

The witnesses are not consistent in this, and the video evidence does not suggest that an attack occurred in the way described by Zimmerman.

clambo says

reprobate student with multiple suspensions.

None for violence. While Zimmerman has a known violent history.

clambo says

Tray terrorized people

There is no basis to believe this to be true.

clambo says

This exact thing could happen also in Vermont, Arizona, Texas and other concealed carry states.

Every state allows concealed carry. Some states are more lax in who they let carry. I think that we can all agree that not everyone should be allowed to have a CCW license. Do you think that someone with a history of domestic violence and has been arrested for assaulting a police officer should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm?

Dan8267 says

If the skin color of the two people were exchanged,

You and 99.99% of the US population would have never heard of this story or even cared. Our President would not have commented on it and the Media would not be obssessing over it 24/7.

This shooting is a tragic situation that is not black/white (no pun intended). This situation has exposed the worst in some quarters by tweeting home addresses etc. and fanning the flames of racial division. All the while we ignore the much greater tragedy (in terms of human lives lost) of African Americans being murdered every single week by other African Americans.