patrick.net

Bap33 says

I was talking about the photo choice of the leftist media

Yeah those leftists really have a problem with assholes murdering children.

So what if they emphasize the kids youth, you know because of the morons that can't comprehend that he's a child (and not a scary negro).

So a lot of people have been talking shit about Martin. He was a black prowler in a hoodie with gold teeth, so he must have been an asshole who assaulted Zimmerman. Well, the evidence has come out to show those conjectures were complete bullshit.

Without getting all CSI on your ass, here's the links:

Funeral director says Trayvon's body showed no signs of brawl

EMS contradict Zimmerman's claims of violence.

This, coupled by the fact that Martin was shot in the back, means that all those talking shit about Martin owe his family an apology. Fuss up, you were wrong. Zimmerman was just a racist asshole, and Martin did nothing wrong.

I guess it must be hard for social conservatives to admit that given access to a gun, some assholes will just murder people they don't like for crappy ass reasons. Some people with no criminal history will use guns to commit crimes. Maybe that's not an argument for gun control, but rather for a well-armed society, but it's something social conservatives won't admit. Some of their gun-toting compatriots are just assholes.

wrong - again, Dan.

1) The suspected prowler wasn't in a brawl, he cheap-shot some chubby white/not white/hispanic guy in the nose and GRABBED his head and bounced it on the sidealk. Not much brawl or damage caused from those actions.
2) The shot in the back is possiblely the result of a fast reacting attacker trying to avoid the chosen form of defense from the target. Attacker picked the wrong target. Defender had no choice of time or place of attack, but did retain his choice of defense. If the attacker was not a coward, he would not have turned to run. Besides, the defender may have been a little dazed from the head-thumping on the cement. Ofcourse, had this all happened outside of Trevon's house at 3pm, as he was headed home from school, and as Zimmerman was headed from his KKK meeting, my opinion would change.

Bap33 says

he cheap-shot some chubby white/not white/hispanic guy in the nose

Yet there was no sign of a broken or bloody nose on the video.

Bap33 says

GRABBED his head and bounced it on the sidealk.

That would have left obvious physical evidence, and the EMS would have backed up the story instead of contradicting it. Head injuries are serious.

Bap33 says

The shot in the back is possiblely the result of a fast reacting attacker trying to avoid the chosen form of defense from the target.

So Martin is like the flash. Zimmerman shot at Martin while Martin was facing him, but Martin then turned around faster than a bullet, but not quite fast enough to evade the bullet.

And you think that's more plausible than Zimmerman just aiming for the guy's back?

The evidence shows that Zimmerman was the attacker and Martin was the defender.

If Zimmerman was really a concerned citizen, he would have been armed with a video camera. They are cheap and provide excellent defense for the lawful. And they aren't mutually exclusive with guns.

Hell, I say all guns should have built in cameras with wireless video transmission. You can't arm the gun unless the video has been rolling for at least five minutes. If you want the gun to be ready to use at all time, it must be transmitting video at all times.

The "new" ABC video shows all kinds of blood and injury to Zimmerman.

The descision to pull a weapon for defense and then the act of firing that weapon take time. The descsion to attack, and then runaway when the target pulls a weapon takes less time.

That part about gun-video sounds neat - but, as with all gun laws - only applies to those who follow the law. None of the supporters of the prowler respect the laws aginst lynching or posting bounties thus far. Any chance they respect gun laws?

Bap33 says

The "new" ABC video shows all kinds of blood and injury to Zimmerman.

Enhanced is another word for "altered" by humans or machines making guesses. Furthermore, such a video does not accurately reflect the real state of the wound, if any, nor does it show that Martin caused that wound.

Had the wound been fresh, it would be bleeding.

http://www.zVSxiTi6kf4

As the above video says, Zimmerman should have been covered in Martin's blood if his account were truthful. Also, Martin's hands should have been bruised. Really, forensic science is advanced enough to collaborate or disprove Zimmerman's account. So far, all the evidence points to Zimmerman lying.

wtf is this ?
Bap33 says

If the attacker was not a coward, he would not have turned to run. Besides, the defender may have been a little dazed from the head-thumping on the cement.

So weak. Now an unarmed guy running from a sociopath with a gun is a coward.

Bap33 says

None of the supporters of the prowler

Yeah, thats the best you've got Bap, calling a random teenager out at night a prowler ?

Once a racist jerk always a racist jerk. SOme people outgrow that particular type of evil. You may be single handeldy killing any small tiny little bit of respect I could find for a fundamentalist Christian. It's all about the hate and ingnorace (in other words the truest form of evil).

You're converting me Bap, because in my mind I previously thought you were some kind of a Christian. And I know you are. So this is what that means eh ?

The world is clearly upside down when I see some people here are defending the killer.

Zimmerman was carrying a gun and looked for a fight.
Martin was unarmed. (It will be different if he has a knife.)

Who is more likely to KILL you if you encounter them in a small conflict?

The gun makers try to confuse people with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Do you know how difficult for an unarmed to kill people?

How often do you read on a newspaper that an unarmed teenage kills a 200lb male adult?

Dan, nope. And you know it. Your picking a side to enjoy an arguement. I'm just pointing out facts without adding in the racebaitor games from the left. It is laughable that you touted the ABC vid as undeniable proof when it fit your template, and then discredit the vid when it proves your view false. The way CBS altered the 911 calls should result in prison time for hte racebaitors. Shooting a person in the trunk with a small caliber weapon will not splatter the shooter, and you know this also. At close range, a trunk shot is not a 100% kill shot - again, you knew that.

@marcus,
none of my positions are race based. All of your are. And that makes me a racist? Interesting view. Name calling is your weapon of choice, but you have to lay down your intellect to use it. If you notice, Dan can make points and mess with my points, all day long, and thus far does not attack me personally. My faith in God is what places me here, trying to keep the ship upright. Your inability to grasp basic right and wrong is, in part I think, due to your struggles with God's word ... or just the basics of right and wrong, good and evil. Zimmerman was acting as a defender ... he had a reason to be out walking the neighborhood in the dark, late at night, it was his DUTY and his RIGHT. If he was a Golden Gloves boxer, or an MMA champ, then he may not be stupid to undertake such a task unarmed, but doing his DUTY unarmed with be idiotic without having the WEAPONS of hand-to-hand combat skills. And, now you must know, that a 17 y.o. negro male in athletic condition is a MUCH more dangerous hand-to-hand combat WEAPON than a chubby 25ish non-athletic white/hispanic dude. That is why we send the 18 y.o. males to war ... they do it better than the older guys.

Please answer this: Why didn't Trevon have a weapon on him? Allow me: He did not feel threatened? He had no plans to use one? Why do you automatically place Zimmerman in the catagory of having a weapon becasue of a plan? He carried a weapon because: 1) It is his right to, 2) He was doing a DUTY that was dangerous, 3) It is smarter to be judged by 12 vs carried by 6.

Opinion: ((The BABY DADDY racebait MASTERS Al Jackson and Jesse Sharpten, along with SpikeLee and the idiots at CBS should be jailed for attempted murder, lynching, and inciting a riot.))

Bap33 says

Why didn't Trevon have a weapon on him?

Because he was going out for snacks. And he was 17 and didn't own a weapon.

Bap33 says

2) He was doing a DUTY that was dangerous,

Zimmerman wanted to have a DUTY, but never could because of his prior arrest record. So he named himself Neighborhood Watchman, just like I name myself Gardener. My Gardening is a hobby, not a duty.

Bap33 says

3) It is smarter to be judged by 12 vs carried by 6.

Until you go to PMITA Prison, where there are a lot of horny, evil guys bigger than you.

Bap33 says

1) It is his right to

Yep, he has the right to a firearm. However, he doesn't have the right to use on somebody else, except in self-defense. His pursuit of Tray shows that he went looking for trouble, rather than trouble found him.

Bap33 says

none of my positions are race based. All of your are. And that makes me a racist? Interesting view. Name calling is your weapon of choice, but you have to lay down your intellect to use it.

It's pointless. You still call Martin a prowler. AH, you might as well call me names if you're just going to be a troll about it.

You call AL Sharpton Jesse Jackson and others who only want to see Zimmerman charged names. You basically lie about how they don't care about lynchig and bounties. In my view only a rabid racist would make such comments.

What I said about your Christianity wasn't meant as name calling. I see your stance on this as proof that your ability to determine the difference between right and wrong does not exist.

You seem to think that if I feel Zimmerman murdered Martin(and I state this), that presuming Martin was a prowler is some kind of equivalence.
The thing is, I argue why it is likely that it was murder, because he should be charged given a fair trial. (which I have said about ten times).

Even if Martin was "casing" the neighborhood as a prowler, whatever that even means, Zimmerman is easily guilty of manslaughter. But still if you aren't a racist, then why the repeated use of the assumption "prowler?" All we really know is he was in the neighborhood.

And why do you believe that it's likely he attacked Zimmerman ? Does that really ring true for you ? Is it not obvious that Zimmerman easily could have provoked this, even if it's true ? Is it not obvious that if Zimmerman shot him for little more than being in the neighborhood and or for being "suspicious" and or rude, that he would make up a story about it being self defense ?

I could give you the benefit of the doubt that this is about your defensiveness about guns rather than racism (but I doubt it).

If you aren't a racist, answer me this.

Based on what we know (not what we wish were true), what's more likely ?

1) That Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter or worse.

2) That Martin was a prowler. (If that's to difficult to define - replace with "Martin had motives for being in the neighborhood that were not innocent").

Please, which of those two are more likely in your opinion?

Bap33 says

He carried a weapon because: 1) It is his right to

Yes, according to FL law he was allowed to carry a weapon.

Thought experiment for you Bap33. Let's say that you are in charge of deciding who gets a permit to carry a handgun. An application comes across your desk and in the background check are the following items:
1. Arrested for domestic violence
2. Received a restraining order from his ex-fiancee
3. Arrested for assaulting a police officer
4. Fired from security job for being too aggressive
5. Involved in a road rage indecent where the other driver was followed and thought they may be attacked
6. Self-appointed neighborhood watch captain; several neighbors complained how he is overly aggressive and followed "suspicious" people back to their homes

So, Bap do you grant the permit to carry?

Sounds like a guy you should not attack.

One of the likely scenarios.

Zimmerman calls police describing a suspicious guy who "might be on drugs."

Police tell him not to pursue (but does that mean they also said they would send cops to the scene ?).

Zimmerman approaches Martin and tries to hold him for police. (btw if Martin had some weed on him, would that have been reported in the media?).

Refusing to be held by Zimmerman (and maybe even aware that he has a gun, and not wanting to be held for police because of small amount of weed in his pocket - for consumption), Martin kicks his ass and then runs.

(Bap says this is cowardly - I guess in Baps world he should have killed Zimmerman).

MAybe martin was not just out for Skittles and an ice tea. Maybe it was to smoke a little and then go for the skittles and ice tea.

Just a theory that sounds very plausible to me.

clambo says

Sounds like a guy you should not attack.

SOunds like an asshole who would provoke "an attack."

marcus says

Just a theory that sounds very plausible to me.

Based on the evidence at hand this sounds very plausible.

Dan8267 says

This, coupled by the fact that Martin was shot in the back

Is this true? If so its extremely damning, but what I read (and I just checked a couple of articles right now) is that he was shot in the chest. That doesn't make it OK, of course...

clambo says

Sounds like a guy you should not attack.

Incorrect.

If someone follows you then tries to detain you even children are taught to attempt escape. Yes, even if this includes attacking the person at first in order to get their hands off you.

Unfortunately this can result in being shot in the back. However, if someone is willing to shoot you in the back you should not let them hold you or take you to another location.

the police did not talk to Zimmerman over the phone ... for the zillionith time.

Leo, I disagree with the entire system of "license" to exersize your rights. Until we need a license to vote, we should not need a license to carry a weapon as long as we are a legal citizen that has not been convicted of a felony that removes the right to carry a weapon. Giving the power of "pass/fail" to some gov agency (local or national), is not how I think it should be done. But, in answer to your question, I would issue a permit to everyone who is legally allowed to carry ... other wise I may be called a racist/sexist/homophobe/zionist/islamist or some other name that the rejected person claims as their protected group.

@marcus,
Jesse Sharpten, Al Jackson, Lord Barry's Czars, are a great example of what is wrong in America's negro political arm. Herman Cain, Condi Rice, and Judge Thomas are examples of what is right in America's negro political arm. I admire these three completely becasue of who they are and not their negro bloodline. You are a racist if you only see race every chance you get. Sharpeten and Jackson and SpikeLee and Lord Barry's Czars are all racists. Are you a racist marcus? I don't know that you are. I think you are a compassionate person who sees the youth in teenagers, and would rather not see the harsh monster that can be found in many of today's teenagers. I'm not saying you are PollyAnna about it, just that you want to see the good ... and that may be why you miss some facts along the way.

Bap, please be so kind as to answer.

marcus says

Based on what we know (not what we wish were true), what's more likely ?

1) That Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter or worse.

2) That Martin was a prowler. (If that's to difficult to define - replace with "Martin had motives for being in the neighborhood that were not innocent").

Please, which of those two are more likely in your opinion?

marcus says

clambo says

Sounds like a guy you should not attack.

SOunds like an asshole who would provoke "an attack."

marcus, was the prowler provoking an attack by his actions?

both persons left their domicile with a particular set of actions in their minds for the next few minutes. If you would find a way to explain the prowler walking back and forth in front of a secluded residence, in the dark, late at night, with his identity hid by a hoody, acting just like the criminal element in the area, out of his supposed pathway to the store, I'd listen. Because the when,where,why, and how for Zimmermans actions are all set out and factual. Do the exact same for the prowler. So far, the best excuse has been, "he has the right to walk around in the dark late at night." If that is good enough for you, then you do not understand right and wrong. In my opinion.

Bap33 says

Leo, I disagree with the entire system of "license" to exersize your rights. Until we need a license to vote, we should not need a license to carry a weapon as long as we are a legal citizen that has not been convicted of a felony that removes the right to carry a weapon.

Behavior/activities that are dangerous are routinely licensed and I see this as a good thing -- driving, etc. We can agree to disagree on this.

I appreciate the candid response.

So, just to be extra sure on where you stand. What you are saying is that you are totally supportive of someone, for whom your wife/daughter has filed a restraining order against, legally being able to carry a concealed firearm? Or someone who has a history of mental instability? Or people with known violent gang affiliations? As long as there is not felony on their record you they should legally be able to conceal carry with no license requirement?

Wow, I thought that I was pretty permissive in who should be eligible for a CCW, and what they should be allowed to carry. That goes way beyond what I would feel comfortable with in my neighborhood.

@marcus,
#1) I am not a lawyer or judge and not too sure of what all "manslaughter" can be ... and really not sure about "guilty" of it ... but, Zimmerman did kill the prowler with a shot from his weapon. I assume it was on purpose, since the claim of accidental discharge has not been made to my knowledge. So, if the law says killing a person on purpose is manslaughter, no matter what the situation is, then he would have to be guilty of that. But, if there is no law against shooting an attacker, or if that removes the manslaughter part, then Zimmerman didn't brake any law.
But, the street justice that the racebaitors are wanting should bother more than anything else. Innocent lives are at stake.

2) I think that sounds about right.

I'm accumulating sources. Here's one.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120403facts_vs_rumors_in_the_trayvon_martin_saga/srvc=home&position=recent

I will ad them to this same post (by edit if I find others like this).

An editorial, but good.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ama-yawson/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_b_1399944.html

Bap33 says

But, the street justice that the racebaitors are wanting

The people who you cal racebaiters are people who strongly feel Zimmerman must be charged and tried.

Bap33 says

Your picking a side to enjoy an arguement.

How so? Everything I've said is backed up by evidence: video or audio.

The claim that Martin was prowling is a conjecture with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. The claim that Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman is unsupported, and even if it did happen, that would be Martin exercising his right to self-defense against a man who stalked him, got out of the car, and became menacing. All of which is apparent from the 911 call and Zimmerman's obviously displayed rage.

By any standards Zimmerman instigated the whole situation and Martin could not escape. Zimmerman had a car; Martin was on foot. WTF, was Martin suppose to do? Shoot himself to save Zimmerman the trouble? Hell, Martin was calling for help at the time of the attack according to all the forensics experts who listened to the 911 recording.

Look, I know why you and others want Zimmerman to get away with this killing. O.J. Simpson. Yep, The Juice. O.J. was guilty of murdering his white wife. We all know that. Hell, even all African Americans know that, even though they won't admit it. But Martin isn't O.J. and Zimmerman isn't O.J.'s wife. Letting Zimmerman go won't undo the injustice of the O.J. Simpson trial. Nor did that trial make it any more likely that a black man will be acquitted of murder unless he's a movie star, an NFL player, and has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on lawyers. So let it go. This ain't about O.J. It's about a 17-year-old kid who was shot to death unjustly.

Bap33 says

I'm just pointing out facts without adding in the racebaitor games from the left.

Any race baiting by "the left" is completely irrelevant to this case. And do state that race has nothing to do with this crime, is a blatant lie. What you could race baiting is at least mostly people coming to grips that this was a racially motivated crime and it resulted in the death of a minor.

Bap33 says

It is laughable that you touted the ABC vid as undeniable proof when it fit your template, and then discredit the vid when it proves your view false.

I touted the untampered security camera video as evidence, not undeniable proof, but good evidence that Zimmerman's story was not accurate. Tampered with video can be made to look like anything. How did they "enhance" the video? Did they press a magic "enhance" button or did they pay an artist to change the pixels based on what he thought should be there? Enhanced is code for Photochopped. Big difference.

I could enhance the video to show Zimmerman wearing a KKK robe if I wanted to. If you want to bring "enhanced" video in the court, I want to know who's doing the enhancement, what exactly he is doing, and I want to see him do it right in front of the court. I've completely against the use of "junk science" in the courtroom. It has lead to the execution of at least one innocent person.

You notice that I did not deny that Martin had gold teeth, wore a hoodie, or was suspended. These things are true. However, they don't justify a murder, not by a long shot.

Bap33 says

Shooting a person in the trunk with a small caliber weapon will not splatter the shooter, and you know this also.

I most certainly don't know that. TYT's claim that shooting a person at close range when the target is on top of you should cause blood to be on your shirt seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'll be willing to concede this point if several forensics experts confirm that you are correct on this. I haven't performed any experiments to confirm or disprove this, and I don't plan on doing so.

Bap33 says

At close range, a trunk shot is not a 100% kill shot - again, you knew that.

If you shoot and kill someone, it's murder whether or not there was a 100% chance of the person dying. The only question is whether the murder is: first degree, second degree, manslaughter, or self-defense.

Bap33 says

Please answer this: Why didn't Trevon have a weapon on him?

Most people outside of Texas don't carry weapons. And just because Martin wasn't carrying a weapon, doesn't mean he couldn't be suddenly placed in a situation where he feared for his life. I don't see your point.

Bap33 says

Zimmerman was acting as a defender ... he had a reason to be out walking the neighborhood in the dark, late at night, it was his DUTY and his RIGHT.

And Zimmerman should have followed the 911 operator's instructions to stay back. Then no one would be dead. Zimmerman was more than free to video record Martin while maintaining a distance, as creepy as that is.

Zimmerman was obviously angry and upset. And that is no condition for anyone "upholding the law" to be in. If you want to be a law enforcer, you have to be calm, cool, and collected.

bdrasin says

Is this true? If so its extremely damning, but what I read (and I just checked a couple of articles right now) is that he was shot in the chest.

Dan8267 says

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.

Maybe not. I read the comment by leoj707, but did not confirm it since leoj707 is very good on being factually correct. However, leoj707 was responding to someone else and the original text is no longer available, so I can't trace it to the source.

There are some Internet sites claiming that Martin was shot in the back, however, none of them that I can find are substantiated.

http://www.amazonsellercommunity.coms/message.jspa?messageID=2840778
http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/eye-witness-appears-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/
http://www.amazonsellercommunity.coms/message.jspa?messageID=2840778

It appear that this rumor came from a misquoting of an erroneous statement from Rev. Jesse Jackson. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20120403facts_vs_rumors_in_the_trayvon_martin_saga

Statement: Trayvon Martin was shot in the back of the head.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson got that wrong at a rally in Eatonville on March 25. Trayvon was shot once in the chest at close range.

Conclusion: The statement that Martin was shot in the back is false. Martin was shot in the front. This weakens the case for first-degree murder and strengthens both the case for manslaughter and self-defense. It does not, however, prove either.

leoj707 says

If someone follows you then tries to detain you even children are taught to attempt escape.

But, of course, running makes you look guilty. And if Martin had run, Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and everyone would be saying that Martin ran because he was guilty of something.

all this talk of racism is missing the most important part of the situation: zimmerman stalked, shot, and killed a person who was living in the community.

zimmerman had no legal or legitimate authority to enforce the law or even act as a neighborhood watch captain because there was no organized neighborhood watch.

martin was legally in the community. he's under no obligation to register with the local self proclaimed watch captain. he's under no obligation to submit to a stop and talk with the local self proclaimed watch captain.

martin was a recent arrival to the community. personally, if I was in the same situation, I would consider being followed by a guy in an SUV and then chased on foot as at least creepy, if not threatening...especially if that individual appears white and has a shaved head.

leoj707 says

Behavior/activities that are dangerous are routinely licensed and I see this as a good thing -- driving, etc. We can agree to disagree on this.

you mention things that are not rights, they are privilages that can be revoked. And a license to ensure minimum abilities and understanding for the others using public roadways seems logical.

Known gang affiliation that is not prossecuted is not the fault of the citizen. In my world we hang all inmates on death row tomorrow, and every gangster in prison gets hung the next day. Anyone found to be a gangster should be hung right away. But, a citizen just suspected of being a gangster, that is a legal citizen and legal to carry in every other way, has no reason to give up their right to be armed however they wish

Like I said, we let anyone over 18 vote, and anyone over 21 buy booze, so anyone of age should be able to carry anything they wish at any time, if they can legally do so. THere are laws against murder and intimidation. Weather or not a gun is involved should not matter. Like he said, there are some big perverts in prison that don't need guns as a weapon to inflict pain, torture, and death.

omgbacon says

zimmerman had no legal or legitimate authority to enforce the law or even act as a neighborhood watch captain because there was no organized neighborhood watch.

To add to your point, even if he was a member of a Neighborhood Watch, I believe all the state and national NW orgs have a policy that members should NOT carry weapons, only report.

I reiterate my theory:
Zimmerman was a frustrated wanna-be cop, who never could be because of his DV/Assault arrest record. This was the primary driver.

There are also reports he was canned from a Security Guard job for overzealous behavior. This statement from a co-worker is very revealing about his mentality:

George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive, ex-co-worker says

“Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us,” he said. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”

The source said Zimmerman, who made between $50 and $100 a night, was let go in 2005.

“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”

The year 2005 was a bad one for Zimmerman: he was arrested for fighting with a cop trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking, and he and his ex-fiancée took out protective orders against each other.

The former co-worker, who is no longer in touch with Zimmerman, said he was shocked to hear what happened Feb. 26 in a gated community in Sanford, Fla.

“He definitely loved being in charge. He loved the power. Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never,” he said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223#ixzz1r0NrirrU

Dan8267 says

The claim that Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman is unsupported, and even if it did happen, that would be Martin exercising his right to self-defense against a man who stalked him, got out of the car, and became menacing

you should write fiction for a living.

thunderlips11 says

This statement from a co-worker is very revealing about his mentality:

no, this statement from a person wanting to be part of the parade shows they want to be part of the parade.

Dan, please go here and then comment: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-police-report-reveals-crime-scene-details-175656087.html

I really liked the part that says, "directly conflicts against what the racebaitors were saying". I paraphrased a bit.

Some parts of FL are not a civil paradise like the Bay Area. You have to take into account that these laws prevent a lot of crime.

omgbacon says

zimmerman had no legal or legitimate authority to enforce the law or even act as a neighborhood watch captain because there was no organized neighborhood watch.

I don't think he'd have the right to do what he did even if there was an organized neighborhood watch.

omgbacon says

if I was in the same situation, I would consider being followed by a guy in an SUV and then chased on foot as at least creepy, if not threatening...especially if that individual appears white and has a shaved head.

OMG! Shaved heads are the white equivalent of hoodies! Watch out Mr. Clean!

I've got to give props to bacon for flipping that issue.

thunderlips11 says

Zimmerman was a frustrated wanna-be cop, who never could be because of his DV/Assault arrest record. This was the primary driver.

There are also reports he was canned from a Security Guard job for overzealous behavior. This statement from a co-worker is very revealing about his mentality:

George Zimmerman lost job as party security guard for being too aggressive, ex-co-worker says

I agree. This is what makes it ambivalent as to whether Zimmerman committed first-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. I'm about 50/50 on which one he should be charged with. It all comes down to how much premeditation Zimmerman had.

He certainly was in a pissed off, gun ho state. But how much intention did he have to hurt Martin. It's hard to say. There's certainly evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was out to get Martin after being frustrated that he didn't get all the other blacks. The question is whether or not there is enough evidence.

I suppose it doesn't matter too much since Florida's 10-20-Life law ensures that Zimmerman, if convicted of manslaughter using a gun, would get at least 25 years in prison.

Bap33 says

Like I said, we let anyone over 18 vote, and anyone over 21 buy booze, so anyone of age should be able to carry anything they wish at any time, if they can legally do so.

Anyone who can legally carry a gun can carry a gun. That's a truism.

Now it might be interesting if we had some rational criteria for determining who can and who cannot legally care a gun and what kinds of guns and ammo they could carry.

Bap33 says

THere are laws against murder and intimidation. Weather or not a gun is involved should not matter.

The voters of Florida disagree with you. Personally, I don't believe in minimum sentencing laws as they unjustly assume there are never extraneous circumstances. However, the social conservatives in Florida got "all tough on crime" and demanded stricter laws.

Politicians always obliged because being tough on crime is always a good political move. As a result, Florida has a law called 10-20-Life which states

So, in Florida, where the shooting took place, the use of a gun is very much important. Ironically, the passage of the 10-20-Life law was mainly motivated to target black criminals and billboards are posted all over black neighborhoods with the above image.

Now maybe like me, you don't agree with minimum sentencing laws in general or the 10-20-Life law in particular, but it was passed by social conservative voters, people just like you bap.

Dan, please go here and then comment: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-police-report-reveals-crime-scene-details-175656087.html

thank you.

I am all for 1 strike, but I'll take 3 strikes. The death penalty by hanging, in a public arena, with the body left hanging - completely nude - for three days while birds feast on the eyes and other soft tissue, and dogs eat the entrails that gather on the ground - is how I suggest we deal with gangs, child molestation, kidnapping, forced sodomy rape, murder while robbing, first degree murder, car-jacking (not just armed, but any), drug sales of any amount for any amount of money. Public death by hanging in a time frame of about 1 year from the time you do the crime until you swing. It's time to get productivity up to speed.