Your Opinion Of Zimerman Now?

[Langston Hughes]

Yeah, we should listen to the uninformed of the world like yourself who wrongly assume that Rev Al doesn't ever work on African American cultural issues such as violence. I'll give you that he's not MLK, but then again who is these days. Everyone it seems has a angle and the only ones you hate are those on the minority side.

[BlackHorse]

. Everyone it seems has a angle and the only ones you hate are those on the minority side.

 

Oh that's not true Langston. I think you're a race baiting hate monger and you're white. Furthermore I don't hate anyone. I may dislike some people, but I don't hate them.

 

By the way, yet another example of ignore and deflection on your part. Can't discount the point that was made so you just try to insult the person making it. So typical of you though, I expect it. You don't want to talk about this issue, you just want everyone else to agree with your point of view on it.

Edited July 17, 2013 by BlackHorse

[napfirst]

He'll be in Chicago in August...only a few weeks from now.

 

Sharpton might be an opportunistic fool most of the time, but as you'd say: swing and a miss on this one.

Nick, Nick, Nick.....I had no idea you were so naive .....this high murder rate started last year.....if think Sharpton will make a difference in Chicago, I have some low-tide land I want to sale you....nice try but a miss

[FiredMotorCompany]

You guys are like a little gang.

 

"when your a jet your a jet...."

 

 

Misused the word your, . . . . twice.

Saw this in the paper and couldn't resist.....

 

(Spoiler: Read the trash can)

 

Edited July 18, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

Oh that's not true Langston. I think you're a race baiting hate monger and you're white. Furthermore I don't hate anyone. I may dislike some people, but I don't hate them.

 

By the way, yet another example of ignore and deflection on your part. Can't discount the point that was made so you just try to insult the person making it. So typical of you though, I expect it. You don't want to talk about this issue, you just want everyone else to agree with your point of view on it.

 

Okay, you only dislike those on the minority side. You had a point?

[cal50]

Let's not pretend it hasn't been coming from both sides in this thread though. *cough*"could be Obama's son"*cough*.

 

 

Well if he had a son killed (during an assault) I could understand him being upset.

Making a hypothetical statement without knowing the facts, is pretty stupid. Especially when your hypothetical son was the assailant.

 

Time for another beer summit.

[NickF1011]

I'm trying to stay out of this one, but that's what OBAMA said.

Yes it is, but go back through and read the context of its usage by a certain someone. Not the same.

[NickF1011]

Nick, Nick, Nick.....I had no idea you were so naive .....this high murder rate started last year.....if think Sharpton will make a difference in Chicago, I have some low-tide land I want to sale you....nice try but a miss

Naivete has nothing to do with it. You implied he was ignoring the violence in Chicago. Just pointing out that he's not. Whether he'll do any good or not isn't the point.

[BlackHorse]

Okay, you only dislike those on the minority side. You had a point?

 

 

Wasn't the point I was making at all but I know that no matter what anyone says, that is the only point you will hear, because it's all you want to hear and you can't get around your own narrow minded point of view on the matter.

Edited July 18, 2013 by BlackHorse

[grbeck]

There was another case of an armed citizen being acquitted after shooting and killing a teenager he claimed had threatened him. The shooting occurred after the defendant confronted a group of young men he claimed were stealing from cars in his neighborhood. The family of the dead teenager, of course, says he was a good boy, never did anything wrong, etc., etc.

 

This is obviously another case of a white vigilante being let off the hook because of racism in 21st century America. This verdict would never have been rendered if the victim were a white teenager.

 

Oh, wait, the DEFENDANT was African-American and the TEENAGER was white:

 

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

 

Maybe American juries are prejudiced...in favor of adults of all races who confront young men acting suspiciously in their neighborhoods.

Edited July 18, 2013 by grbeck

[Langston Hughes]

There was another case of an armed citizen being acquitted after shooting and killing a teenager he said had threatened him. The shooting occurred after the defendant confronted a group of young men he claimed were stealing from cars in his neighborhood. The family of the dead teenager, of course, says he was a good boy, never did anything wrong, etc. etc.

 

This is obviously another case of a white vigilante being let off the hook because of racism in 21st century America.

 

Oh, wait, the DEFENDANT was African-American and the teenager was white:

 

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

 

Gee, maybe American juries are prejudiced...in favor of adults of all races who confront young men acting suspiciously in their neighborhoods.

 

Or that's what the American Spectator article would like you to believe.

[Langston Hughes]

Wasn't the point I was making at all but I know that no matter what anyone says, that is the only point you will hear, because it's all you want to hear and you can't get around your own narrow minded point of view on the matter.

 

I can't wrap my head around your theory because it's fucking stupid. That's all.

[NickF1011]

Settle it down, folks. It's almost the weekend! :happy feet:

Edited July 18, 2013 by NickF1011

[BlackHorse]

Thanks grbeck. I haven't heard about this case so I don't know all the details but I would say that if this kid attacked him then Scott was justified in defending himself. The similarity to the Trayvon Martin case is easy to see. The man did what he had to do.

 

This nation is never going to get over the racial division so long as we listen to the voices of Al Sharpton and Langston Hughes. They don't want to move forward. They want to dwell in the past, keep old wounds festered and alive, keep old tensions stirred up. They do this because it suits their negative point of view about life in general. They will never accomplish anything good or worthy of note. They live a world of hatred, negativity and intolerance. The rest of us just have to let them wallow in their own misery and hatred and get along without their nonsense.

[BlackHorse]

Or that's what the American Spectator article would like you to believe.

 

 

Oh look, more conspiracy theory. lol What a joke you are man.

[grbeck]

Or that's what the American Spectator article would like you to believe.

 

This article did not appear in the American Spectator.

 

Throughout the Zimmerman-Martin case, we kept hearing that the shooting was racially motivated, the police would have immediately charged Zimmerman if the victim were white, the jury only acquitted him because Martin was an African-American, etc., etc.

 

Examining all of cases of this type - as opposed to focusing on one because we believe it fits the conventional narrative - we find that this is not the case.

[Mark B. Morrow]

There was another case of an armed citizen being acquitted after shooting and killing a teenager he claimed had threatened him. The shooting occurred after the defendant confronted a group of young men he claimed were stealing from cars in his neighborhood. The family of the dead teenager, of course, says he was a good boy, never did anything wrong, etc., etc.

 

This is obviously another case of a white vigilante being let off the hook because of racism in 21st century America. This verdict would never have been rendered if the victim were a white teenager.

 

Oh, wait, the DEFENDANT was African-American and the TEENAGER was white:

 

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

 

Maybe American juries are prejudiced...in favor of adults of all races who confront young men acting suspiciously in their neighborhoods.

There are a few big differences between the Scott Trial and Zimmerman's.

First, Scott told the three kids he caught breaking into cars that he had a gun.

Second, there were witnesses to the entire altercation.

Third, Scott testified at his trial and the jury heard him and was able to assess his story of what transpired.

 

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490556/roderick-scott-claims-self-defense-in-teen-s-shooting/

[grbeck]

There are a few big differences between the Scott Trial and Zimmerman's.

First, Scott told the three kids he caught breaking into cars that he had a gun.

Second, there were witnesses to the entire altercation.

Third, Scott testified at his trial and the jury heard him and was able to assess his story of what transpired.

 

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490556/roderick-scott-claims-self-defense-in-teen-s-shooting/

 

In the Zimmerman case, there is no proof that Zimmerman had any chance to tell Martin he had firearm before Martin jumped him. At any rate, I am not aware of a Florida statute that requires a person who is carrying a concealed weapon to make any such announcement to people who confront him or her.

 

Also note that Zimmerman was working as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer that night, and was thus expected to track suspicious individuals in that particular housing complex. I see no evidence that Scott was participating in any such program. He left his home (after telling his girlfriend to call 911) and directly confronted the teenagers. Based on what was said about Zimmerman's actions that night (who was already outdoors, and, as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, was expected to track the movements of suspicious individuals), this is vigilantism.

 

The bottom line is that Scott's behavior was a much clearer case of vigilantism than that displayed by Zimmerman - at least, if we are using the standards used by Zimmerman's critics, and we are going to do just that - yet he was acquitted on all charges, and after shooting and killing a white teenager.

 

The simple fact is that the cries about racism motivating both Zimmerman's actions that night, and the final verdict, are nonsense. Many Americans are willing to give people the benefit of the doubt if they confront a suspicious person and said person winds up dead. That is the result of feelings and fears regarding crime, not racism.

Edited July 18, 2013 by grbeck

[cal50]

There are a few big differences between the Scott Trial and Zimmerman's.

First, Scott told the three kids he caught breaking into cars that he had a gun.

Second, there were witnesses to the entire altercation.

Third, Scott testified at his trial and the jury heard him and was able to assess his story of what transpired.

 

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490556/roderick-scott-claims-self-defense-in-teen-s-shooting/

 

Big difference becasue its comparing apples to oranges.

 

Personally I would NEVER inform someone I am carrying a firearm, if an altercation develops the firearm is there (for me) if it gets out of hand. There is no legal requirement to inform for a civilian or a police officer.

People that choose to do so are taking a risk of having the weapon taken away and used against them. Looks good on TV & the movies.....

 

The witnesses in the Zman trial ( the states AND the defense) largely helped Zman. He was over charged and likely should have never been charged based on everything put on the table.

 

As far as Zman testified the prosecution attempted to use his interviews with police and the media against him, several hours worth. If anything the prosecution had over a year to pick apart and develop some narrative or game plan against Zman. They tried and failed. There was enough evidence and witness accounts to get a good idea of what happened. They jury had no problems with it and reached a verdict pretty quickly without issues or lost of questions.

 

It was a VERY weak case for the state and no matter how much they tried the evidence and facts still stack up the opposite way for them, before the trial and now that its over.

[Langston Hughes]

Personally I would NEVER inform someone I am carrying a firearm, if an altercation develops the firearm is there (for me) if it gets out of hand. There is no legal requirement to inform for a civilian or a police officer.

People that choose to do so are taking a risk of having the weapon taken away and used against them. Looks good on TV & the movies.....

 

Taking the gun away does look good in the movies.

 

[Mark B. Morrow]

In the Zimmerman case, there is no proof that Zimmerman had any chance to tell Martin he had firearm before Martin jumped him. At any rate, I am not aware of a Florida statute that requires a person who is carrying a concealed weapon to make any such announcement to people who confront him or her.

 

Also note that Zimmerman was working as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer that night, and was thus expected to track suspicious individuals in that particular housing complex. I see no evidence that Scott was participating in any such program. He left his home (after telling his girlfriend to call 911) and directly confronted the teenagers. Based on what was said about Zimmerman's actions that night (who was already outdoors, and, as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, was expected to track the movements of suspicious individuals), this is vigilantism.

 

The bottom line is that Scott's behavior was a much clearer case of vigilantism than that displayed by Zimmerman - at least, if we are using the standards used by Zimmerman's critics, and we are going to do just that - yet he was acquitted on all charges, and after shooting and killing a white teenager.

 

The simple fact is that the cries about racism motivating both Zimmerman's actions that night, and the final verdict, are nonsense. Many Americans are willing to give people the benefit of the doubt if they confront a suspicious person and said person winds up dead. That is the result of feelings and fears regarding crime, not racism.

You are assuming that Martin jumped Zimmerman. There was no such testimony or evidence at the trial. Perhaps, Zimmerman jumped Martin or grabbed him from behind. Would it change your view if Zimmerman got physical first? We will not ever know since the olny living witness was Zimmerman. On the other hand, Zimmerman's changing versions of the story might come apart under cross examination.

 

There was a difference in Scott going out to confront teens who were in his driveway and who he saw breaking into a neighbor's car and Zimmerman who witnessed no criminal activity by Martin. Scott had actual cause, Zimmerman had only his own suspicions. While I do not agree that breaking into a car should result in the actor's death, neither should someone who isn't doing anything at all wrong be stalked by a cop wannabe after being told not to approach a person he considered suspicious.I do not think Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he decided to chase after him. Zimmerman wasn't expected to follow and confront suspicious persons. Just the opposite he was expected to contact the police and let them handle the matter as they are trained to do. The reason the dispatcher instructed Zimmerman to stay away was for his safety, not Martin's. What if Martin had been a violent armed criminal and had just shot Zimmerman? We would all be commenting on how stupid Zimmerman was for playing cop.

 

I don't quibble with the acquittal under the circumstances and based on the evidence admitted at trial. The burden of proof is correctly at the highest level in a criminal case. The jury had no other choice since there was reasonable doubt at the close of the trial. Likewise there was reasonable doubt in the Scott case. A civil trial of George Zimmerman will likely be far more likely to arrive at the truth since Zimmerman will have to tell his story and be subject to cross.examination on the inconsistencies.

[akirby]

There is no logical scenario in the world that has Zman attacking TM. He already called police and worst case would have pulled the gun if he thought he was about to be attacked and couldn't get away. And no way TM jumps him if he's holding the gun. The only logical conclusion is that TM attacked him by surprise.

[BlackHorse]

Oh it doesn't matter now akirby. Zimmerman has been found not guilty and the Langston Hughes of the world are all upset because they missed an opportunity to try and paint all white conservative males as blood thirsty racist killers. Let them languish in their own irrelevancy.

Edited July 19, 2013 by BlackHorse

[Guest General Mattis]

Also note that Zimmerman was working as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer that night, and was thus expected to track suspicious individuals in that particular housing complex.

 

 

Actually, from my understanding, Zimmerman was not "on duty" that night, but was headed out to Target to pick up a few things. (Kind of blows away the comment that Zimmerman must be guilty because Neighborhood Watch volunteers shouldn’t carry weapons. Opps)

 

Zimmerman claims he spotted Martin standing in front of his friend’s house, a house which a young black male had attempted to burglarize a few weeks before but was stopped thanks to the hard work of George Zimmerman. Knowing who lived in the house, and knowing the person was standing on the grass near the house, not the sidewalk, raised Zimmerman’s suspicions. Zimmerman turned to set up in a position where he could watch Martin, and phoned the non-emergency number for 911.

 

But I wouldn’t expect the media to talk about the facts.

[Guest General Mattis]

You are assuming that Martin jumped Zimmerman. There was no such testimony or evidence at the trial. Perhaps, Zimmerman jumped Martin or grabbed him from behind.

 

The fact there were no defensive wounds on Martin, and no offensive wounds on Zimmerman, it’s reasonable to conclude who started the incident.

 

As well, the Judge deemed evidence that showed Martin had a propensity for violence (street fights and assaulting a bus driver) inadmissible. Had that been allowed (Zimmerman’s past was allowed, why not Martin?) it would have been significant evidence.

 

Would it change your view if Zimmerman got physical first?

 

Yes, it would. But it didn't so move on.

 

On the other hand, Zimmerman's changing versions of the story might come apart under cross examination.

 

The discrepancies were minor, and understandable in “fog of war”. You are hoping for a gotcha moment because after Martin bounced Zimmerman’s head off the sidewalk, you think he should have remembered every single detail.

 

There was a difference in Scott going out to confront teens who were in his driveway and who he saw breaking into a neighbor's car and Zimmerman who witnessed no criminal activity by Martin.

 

Martin was a stranger in a neighborhood that was experiencing break-ins whose suspects fit the description of Martin. Not to mention, Martin was standing on the law of a house owned by his friend, in the rain.

 

stalked by a cop wannabe

 

He was not stalked. Buy yourself a dictionary and learn what that word means and stop repeating Nancy Grace’s talking points.

 

Furthermore, if you want to call Zimmerman a wannabe cop, then you have to call Martin a wannabe thug. You tell me who you’d rather be living next to.

 

I have a wannabe cop down from me. Great guy. I have no idea why he was never hired, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s the department’s loss. Every family on the street has told their kids that if they are in trouble, or need help, they can call him. Considering the witness testimony given in the trial by those who knew George, it seems his neighbors felt the same way. The only one outside of Martin's family who had anything good to say was Precious. Or at least I think she would say that. It's hard to tell since she is illiterate

 

after being told not to approach a person he considered suspicious.

 

Please quote where in the 911 transcript that he was told this.

 

You would sound a whole lot more credible if you actually knew the facts of it.

 

do not think Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he decided to chase after him.

 

But I do believe Martin intended on doing as much damage to Zimmerman has he possibly could

 

What if Martin had been a violent armed criminal

 

He was. Luckily he is no longer

 

We would all be commenting on how stupid Zimmerman was for playing cop.

 

Doubt it. We would have never heard of it. Just like we never hear of the vast majority of murders / crime young black males commit

 

civil trial of George Zimmerman will likely be far more likely to arrive at the truth since Zimmerman will have to tell his story and be subject to cross.examination on the inconsistencies.

 

Don’t forget that much of the information Judge Nelson kept out will be allowed in. If the Martin family was smart, they’d make a deal with George Zimmerman to not take this to a civil court. They got their payday already, and they’ll make more money pushing the lie that is St. Trayvon then if the truth about their delinquent son comes out.