Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

[Vox]

Zimmerman had shot TM dead within a few minutes of that.

So you're making a distinction between being shot dead, and summary execution?

"SUMMARY EXECUTION?"

Could you get even more dramatic and hysterical?

Please?

:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[Cigar]

Ever since this story first broke I have had a burning question. What I remember hearing was that GZ called 911 and the police dispatcher told him not to pursue 'the subject'. There were other parts to the story and if I am mistaken please correct me. My question has to do with the authority of the police dispatcher. I would think that there would be a trained/evaluated person on the other end of the 911 hotline. Why wouldn't their direction carry LEO authority. I would think that if a police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue the subject and he failed to heed that there would be ramifications, legally. By the way GZ, a real classy individual!

Because of all the Unarmed Killings over the last decade, these cases were the main reason why everyone in my family, many of my friends and relatives have gotton our CCW Licences. No matter what happpens, none of us will be Unarmed the next time someone "fears" for their life, because they will have a really good reason to be "afraid".

 

[Rexedgar]

Because of all the Unarmed Killings over the last decade, these cases were the main reason why everyone in my family, many of my friends and relatives have gotton our CCW Licences. No matter what happpens, none of us will be Unarmed the next time someone "fears" for their life, because they will have a really good reason to be "afraid".

Coach 'em up good, Cigar!

 

[sear]

"SUMMARY EXECUTION?"

Could you get even more dramatic and hysterical?

Please?
V #301

It was arrived at quite rationally.

TM has been criticized for walking with his eyes open. FINE! But it's not worthy of summary execution. That's a fact.

And yet comments posted in this thread, akin to: TM shot dead? Good! One less thug in the world.
So whatever difference between Zimmerman's homicide, and summary execution are quite likely immaterial to TM's family.

"dramatic and hysterical?"

And what's the counterpart to "dramatic and hysterical"? The characterization you would accept for your own perspective?
You tell me what to call it. After that I can fashion a rational response.

 

[Vox]

Best thing you can do is accept that Martin was a thug who was casing the area for burglary prospects and was killed because he tried to kill one of the potential victims.

Then just move on to the next lost liberal cause.

:ind:

 

[sear]

"Best thing you can do is accept that Martin was a thug" V #305

That's far from the best thing I can do. But unless you're a buxom nubile eligible woman, you'll never know.

"who was casing the area for burglary prospects"

Z didn't say that.

What Z said was:

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a
real suspicious guy ... This guy looks like he's up to no good, or
he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

Please note ZIMMERMAN'S words.
Not STANDING around, or looking into windows.
The verbs Zimmerman used were "walking" and "looking".

Neither of those are a crime.

And your hyperbole about:

"who was casing the area for burglary prospects"

is absolute nonsense.

I've never seen any evidence for that, and don't recall any such similar thing being introduced at trial.

"and was killed because he tried to kill one of the potential victims."

Are you aware there's another explanation?

One of two things is true.

a) Either the explanation from you I've quoted here is THE ONLY POSSIBLE explanation, or

b) there's at least one other rational explanation.

So, oh font of infinite wisdom and rectitude; YOU tell ME which of those two cases applies.

"Then just move on to the next lost liberal cause."

Ironic.

I've steadfastly taken the side of law and order. That is traditionally recognized as a conservative position.
But I easily understand how reactionaries would need to have that explained to them.

 

[Cigar]

Coach 'em up good, Cigar!

It's all fun and games, until the bullets start coming back :mrgreen:

 

[blackjack50]

Excellent!

YOU pick the law you prefer, be it statute, ordinance, edict, or other.
Then we can compare that DEFINITION to Z's conduct.

I've studied this case in detail.
I introduced the Sanford police telephone transcript here.
I introduced an updated projection of the pedestrian paths of Z & TM.

This is a recreational board.
This is a recreational thread.
No one is holding a loaded gun to my head.
I have no coercion or compulsion to exceed my comfort level here.
Not only have I provided more definitions, more references in this thread than any other poster.
I may have posted more of them than all other posters combined (not sure; please double check me. Count them all, from page #1).

And perhaps most basic of all, I don't like to dance.

It's a definition.
If you don't like it, post your own.

I don't have to prove that.
If it was some vast, complicated, incomprehensible reality that none but genius level CSI could understand, I might have some such compulsion.

But it's a short declarative sentence. Zimmerman night-stalked Martin. Period!
With facts that concise, defining terms ought not be necessary. It's English. Though any term in that four word sentence may have special technical definition, it's immaterial. Ignore that, and the sentence is still valid.

I never asserted otherwise.

I used the verb correctly. I never asserted "Zimmerman committed an act of stalking" in your wording.
Z stalked TM at night, and I've acknowledged it countless times in this thread.

NO
BODY
has proved me wrong.
And they never will.
Because Z night-stalked TM. Have a nice day.

Basically ALL of this is a way of saying that your claim of staking is complete bull****. The Federal law you pulled out was specifically about interstate stalking. And when that is challenged you aren't able to produce another statute because it doesn't actually apply. Like I said: state of Florida law on stalking requires repeated action.

So this is garbage. You could let it go and say "my bad I was wrong," but instead you want to double down and try and protect your "pride." Like I informed you...I'm familiar with this case as well. It holds particular weight for me because it indirectly impacts my life as a concealed carry holder in the state of Florida.

So now you want to obfuscate reality and try to supply some dictionary definition that holds no weight of law. Be my guess. Not if just makes you sound melodramatic. So you can continue with those hysterics, OR...we can move along and discuss other factors about this case. End of the day...Zimmerman...by the LEGAL DEFINITION...was not stalking Trayvon.

And just to put your melodramatics into perspective...would it be "staking" to observe and report the location of a rapist or drunk driver? Even one that is just suspected? Would it be "unreasonable?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

Some Black Lives Don't Matter
Heather Mac Donald, City Journal

Another cell-phone video that didn’t make it to CNN or MSNBC: Last November, 33-year-old Antwan McNutt beat a man to death with a bottle of liquor on the South Side of Chicago. Onlookers took video and posted it to Facebook; no one intervened to help. McNutt, who was charged with murder this week, has prior convictions for manufacturing and delivering a controlled substance, attempted aggravated carjacking, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and battery and resisting arrest, according to DNA Info. But he was back on the streets committing more mayhem, contrary to the “mass incarceration” conceit that black males are targeted with endless draconian punishment for minor transgressions of public order.
We rightly hold our police officers to the highest standards of conduct. Had a cop beaten a black man to death it would justifiably have been international news, especially if the beating had been caught on video. Likewise, if a white man had beaten a black man to death, it would have been international news and cause for public mourning and admonition. But the routine taking of black lives by other blacks generates no interest in the mainstream media. Forty-three hundred people, including two dozen children under the age of 12, were shot in Chicago last year. Had 4,300 white people been shot, there would have been a revolution, and the media would have set up headquarters in the city to cover the breakdown of law and order. But because the victims were nearly all black, few pay attention—besides the police.
Nor have the Black Lives Matter activists, who pour out by the thousands, sometimes to riot, in the case of alleged officer misuse of force, ever protested the killing of blacks by other blacks. If one-one-hundredth of the attention that has been paid to phantom police racism over the last two decades had been devoted to rebuilding the black family, no one would be talking about policing today. Policing is an epiphenomenon of crime. If you want fewer police in your neighborhood, make sure that people are not killing each other.
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of the bestselling The War on Cops.

 

[jaeger19]

Wrong.
You clearly do not understand what you are talking about.
In an affirmative defense the accused only has to provide the reason they used lethal force to generate the jury instruction for self defense. If this is not done they will not get to use said defense.
In this case that was done by the prosecutor providing his statements and walk-through.
.

WOW.. that is so wrong.. they have to provide PROOF.. not just "provide a reason".. you need to go back and read your own link. WOW.. have you got that wrong.

No. He only had to articulate the reason why he resorted to self defense. That was accomplished.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG... your posted information even TELLS you that you are wrong.

That is not evidence that he is the aggressor. That is an irrational argument.
And no, there was no pursuit on Zimmerman's part. Saying so is deliberate dishonesty.

Of course it is.. to claim that following a person in a car, then following them on foot down a darkened street.. and referring to the person as an "a hole" that was "getting away"... certainly is evidence that the person was the aggressor.

to deny that is to be deliberately dishonest. but that's okay... dude.. you so got YOUR OWN REFERENCE.. wrong. So I don't expect a lot.

 

[sear]

"Basically ALL of this is a way of saying that your claim of staking is complete bull" b5 #308

After you post the statutory language that prohibits my use of the word "-stalked", I will surrender to the appropriate law enforcement authorities (depending on whether the law I've violated is federal, State, regional, county, or local).

Until then, you're whining. GROW UP!

 

[jaeger19]

Again, you do not get to make this personal.
It was a separate post about me. That is making it about the person. So stop with the bs.

If you would like to present what the ME said as rebuttal to an actual quote, go right on ahead. I have already destroyed her testimony on this forum by rebutting it with the forensics expert testimony provided by Forensic Pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, I can do so again if needed.

.

Sure.. try to rebut it with the forensics expert. Because you can't.. because his testimony doesn't... but you give it a try. it will be fun.

The outcome severity is irrelevant to the fact that he indeed experience the act getting his head repeatably slammed into the ground.
That is an act that can cause great bodily injury or loss of life.

Well except for the fact that there is no evidence that his head "was repeatedly slammed into the ground".. in fact. .the evidence suggests that he was not being hit with any real force.

This is stupid argumentation.
It is the act itself. Not the actual injury received.

Wrong.. the actual injury received gives evidence to the amount and force of the attack.

Let me guess though. Someone you knew somewhere sometime in the past was able to adequately review, the injuries they were still sustaining to their head to determine they were not life threatening, so they then chose no to use lethal force.

You mean like the thousands of patients that I have seen that have sustained MUCH more facial damage and weren't in life threatening situations. Or maybe the hundreds of times I have sustained such and much worse.. and never considered my self in a life threatening situation..

Getting punched in the nose and scratching your head does not add up to the need for deadly force.. no how.. no way... ESPECIALLY if you a trained in such combat and have previously been in such situations as Zimmerman had.

Understand why your argument is so baseless?

According to your logic.. if I walk to closely to a lady and she opens a door fast and the door hits me on my nose and then I fall back and scratch my head on concrete.. I am free to shoot her because obviously a bloody nose and a scratched head equal the need for deadly force.

Irrelevant as she was shown to not be truthful by the rebuttal witness. She destroyed her own credibility by the way she testified on cross and then was destroyed by rebuttal.

Not at all.. in fact her testimony was certainly truthful. And is medically correct.

Again doesn't matter to the actual act he was enduring. The law inst predicated on actual injury.

The law requires proof that you are reasonably in a life threatening situation. The evidence of the injuries indicate that he was NOT sustaining any force that a reasonable person.. especially with training.. would deem life threatening.

You seem not to know of the case of the individual who chased down a person who stole his car radio.
That person swung a bag of car radios at him, it didn't strike him and he stabbed the guy once killing him because of it.
The Judge in that case ruled it was self defense and dismissed the charges under SYG.
You do not have to have actual injury for the act to be recognized as one that a person can be fearful of great bodily injury or loss of life.

You do have to support yourself with evidence.. I believe in that case.. witnesses SAW the person swing a bag of car radios at him.. WHICH CAN BE CONSTRUED AS A DEADLY WEAPON.. capable of striking with sufficient force. A reasonable person could conclude that they were in danger.

In Zimmermans case.. you have only his testimony.. after pursuing an individual.. THAT HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME.. WHO WAS NOT ARMED. That he was in a life threatening situation and being beaten. The injuries are not consistent with receiving multiple blows with any force which disputes HIS TESTIMONY.

Wrong as usual.
These things are possible, not necessary

.

They dispute his claim that he was in a life or death situation.

Wrong on both counts.
Someone who confronts you angrily, attacks you and knocks you to the ground, mount you and then repeatable slams you head into the ground is the aggressor.

Not true. If I have been followed by a strange person in my neighborhood at night.. and they follow me when I try to avoid them.. and then I ask why they are following me.. and angrily tell them to stop and they attempt to draw a weapon.. THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR.. and under the law.. I am perfectly and reasonably justified in defending myself by using deadly force including trying to get them to the ground and stop them from shooting me.

And the evidence suggest what I just said.. not your premise.

 

[jaeger19]

And strangely enough........DESPITE all that.......still far too many thugs like Trayvon Martin walking the streets and doing crime.

Clearly there may be a need for harsher punishment for those who continue to disrespect our ways and our laws.

:ind:

And this is why intelligent people understand racism is involved.

So we have the facts:

Trayvon Martins criminal record:

(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - The family of Trayvon Martin said Monday that their 17-year-old son had been suspended for possessing traces of marijuana before he was shot to death by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman.

Also on Monday, ]authorities confirmed to the Associated Press that Martin did not have a juvenile offender record].

George Zimmermans criminal record:

In July 2005, he was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.”

Hmmm resisting an officer with violence..

Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence.

So.. according to you... the boy without a criminal record.. is a thug..

the person with arrest and resisting an officer with violence..

and a domestic violence charge.. is the poster child for a good citizen.

Hmmmm..


What seems wrong with this picture...

 

[jaeger19]

Some Black Lives Don't Matter
Heather Mac Donald, City Journal

Another cell-phone video that didn’t make it to CNN or MSNBC: Last November, 33-year-old Antwan McNutt beat a man to death with a bottle of liquor on the South Side of Chicago. Onlookers took video and posted it to Facebook; no one intervened to help. McNutt, who was charged with murder this week, has prior convictions for manufacturing and delivering a controlled substance, attempted aggravated carjacking, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and battery and resisting arrest, according to DNA Info. But he was back on the streets committing more mayhem, contrary to the “mass incarceration” conceit that black males are targeted with endless draconian punishment for minor transgressions of public order.
We rightly hold our police officers to the highest standards of conduct. Had a cop beaten a black man to death it would justifiably have been international news, especially if the beating had been caught on video. Likewise, if a white man had beaten a black man to death, it would have been international news and cause for public mourning and admonition. But the routine taking of black lives by other blacks generates no interest in the mainstream media. Forty-three hundred people, including two dozen children under the age of 12, were shot in Chicago last year. Had 4,300 white people been shot, there would have been a revolution, and the media would have set up headquarters in the city to cover the breakdown of law and order. But because the victims were nearly all black, few pay attention—besides the police.
Nor have the Black Lives Matter activists, who pour out by the thousands, sometimes to riot, in the case of alleged officer misuse of force, ever protested the killing of blacks by other blacks. If one-one-hundredth of the attention that has been paid to phantom police racism over the last two decades had been devoted to rebuilding the black family, no one would be talking about policing today. Policing is an epiphenomenon of crime. If you want fewer police in your neighborhood, make sure that people are not killing each other.
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of the bestselling The War on Cops.

Hmmmm.. and how is this relevant.. in any way?

 

[Jack Hays]

Hmmmm.. and how is this relevant.. in any way?

Please see #302.

 

[sear]

j1 #313

Neither one was a choir boy.

But it was CLEARLY Zimmerman that had armed himself for confrontation.

They may both have had cell-phones. But I don't believe TM had a gun on him at the time.

And of their two records, Zimmerman's is the more serious.

But it should be obvious by now, on page #32 of this thread,

that the defenders of the vigilante Zimmerman, the armed adult that disregarded:
- common sense
- Neighborhood Watch published guidelines, and
- Sanford police dispatch guidance,
and shot dead the school boy walking to his father's location from the candy store;

something else is going on here.

There are so many levels of misconduct on Zimmerman's part.

And they continue to defend the PERPETRATOR, even when all they can do to substantiate

their case is to lie about TM being a "thug" we're better off without.

thug
[thuhg]

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

Thug | Define Thug at Dictionary.com

"(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - The family of Trayvon Martin said Monday that their 17-year-old son had been suspended for possessing traces of marijuana"

quoted from #313

Everybody in the cosmos knows what a despicable, inexcusable crime possessing traces of marijuana is. Why they didn't gouge the boy's eyes out with flaming daggers for it I'll never know.

But Zimmerman is a killer.

Is TM really MORE of a thug than Zimmerman ?! OF COURSE NOT !!

BUT !!

Reality is no impediment to Zimmerman's mindless throngs.

 

[blackjack50]

Because of all the Unarmed Killings over the last decade, these cases were the main reason why everyone in my family, many of my friends and relatives have gotton our CCW Licences. No matter what happpens, none of us will be Unarmed the next time someone "fears" for their life, because they will have a really good reason to be "afraid".

This kind of concerns me a little. You have every right. But you do understand that the stories that we have heard about the unarmed people...have involved unarmed people in questionable situations. I would assume you and your family (or hope) your family don't go around in questionable situations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sear]

b5 #317

a) Regarding a firearm, it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

b) BUT !! Hinckley shot Reagan w/ a .22.
If Hinckley had used a .44, President Bush (elder) would have been a two-termer.

c) Generally a 6" barrel is more accurate than a 1" barrel.

So how much of a cannon are you going to lug around with you? A .45? 10mm?

6" barrel? 8" barrel? Or just settle for a Howitzer?

 

[blackjack50]

After you post the statutory language that prohibits my use of the word "-stalked", I will surrender to the appropriate law enforcement authorities (depending on whether the law I've violated is federal, State, regional, county, or local).

Until then, you're whining. GROW UP!

Lmao! You are the one Zimmerman "night stalked" someone. And when asked to provide evidence on stalked...you gave me the INTERSTATE stalking charge. You want SO badly for Zimmerman to be guilty. But you can't find a charge that sticks.

Dude this is game set and match. You can discuss dictionary definitions all you want. That's fine. You can avoid telling me that following someone while reporting them to police is not unreasonable. But the fact is...you claimed Zimmerman was "stalking" Trayvon. And he was not. Not in any legal sense of the word. Ergo that is NOT evidence of guilt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Please see #302.

Saw it, read it..
'
how is this relevant?

 

[Cigar]

This kind of concerns me a little. You have every right. But you do understand that the stories that we have heard about the unarmed people...have involved unarmed people in questionable situations. I would assume you and your family (or hope) your family don't go around in questionable situations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever Situation I'm in I'll make sure whoever is questioning it knows.

 

[Vox]

And this is why intelligent people understand racism is involved.
Hmmmm..
What seems wrong with this picture...

Probably that you're not one of those intelligent people?

:mrgreen:

You intentionally left off Trayvon Martin's school and police record that I mentioned.

As the Miami Herald noted in its article the month after the incident, “Weed, fights and guns,” a broader, deeper and uglier picture of Zimmerman’s attacker emerged:

As thousands of people gathered here to demand an arrest in the Trayvon Martin case, a more complicated portrait began to emerge of a teenager whose problems at school ranged from getting spotted defacing lockers to getting caught with a marijuana baggie and women’s jewelry.

In October, 2011, Martin was caught on a school surveillance video defacing lockers with obscenities using a magic marker pen. The police investigator said Martin was “hiding and being suspicious.” When the officer confronted Martin the next day he found Martin’s backpack contained some women’s jewelry — a watch, some silver wedding bands and diamond-encrusted earrings. Martin told the officer, “They’re not mine. A friend gave it to me.” Continuing his search, the officer found a large flat-headed screwdriver which the officer described as a burglar’s tool. The jewelry was turned over to the police and Martin was suspended for defacing school property.

It was at this time that his mother, Sybrina Fulton (who had divorced her husband Tracy Martin back in 1999 when Trayvon was four but who conveniently showed up with her ex to attend Zimmerman’s trial) kicked him out of the house and told him to go live with his father in Sanford. It was there that the run-in with Zimmerman occurred on February 26.

Martin’s text messages revealed a teenager just looking for trouble. In a highly redacted 10-page listing of his phone texts, Martin revealed a life of a marijuana smoker (one of his friends called him a “weed head”), and schoolyard bully who had been involved in at least three fistfights and threatened more in order to “get even,” and had shown an interest in obtaining a gun from another friend: “U wanna share a .380?” asked Martin at one point.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16047-trayvon-martin-was-no-innocent

It was that M-DSPD internal affairs investigation which revealed in October 2011 Trayvon Martin was searched by School Resource Officer, Darryl Dunn. The search of Trayvon Martin’s backpack turned up at least 12 pcs of ladies jewelry, and a man’s watch, in addition to a flat head screwdriver described as “a burglary tool”.

When Trayvon was questioned about who owned the jewelry and where it came from, he claimed he was just holding it for a “friend”. A “friend” he would not name.

Later, after the police report was outlined in the Robles article, and despite Trayvon being suspended for the second time in a new school year, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, said Trayvon’s dad, Tracy Martin, and Trayvon’s mom, Sybrina Fulton, did not know anything about the jewelry case.

On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.
Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin

However, there was ONE big issue. SRO Dunn never filed a criminal report, nor opened a criminal investigation, surrounding the stolen jewelry. Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as “found items”, and transferred them, along with the burglary tool, to the Miami-Dade Police property room where they sat on a shelf unassigned to anyone for investigation.

According to an October report of the incident by the Miami Dade Schools Police, obtained by the Miami Herald, Trayvon never received any punishment for the jewellery because he said it was not his and it belonged to a friend.

Trayvon Martin case: He was suspended three times and caught with 'burglary tool' | Daily Mail Online

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ckpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/

Yes, Zimmerman had some domestic violence accusations and other police problems, but they were mostly found to be unwarranted and dropped.

Martin, on the other hand, was caught with stolen jewelry and burglary tools and bragged on social media about his fighting skills.......clearly a record of a violent thug and thief.

:ind:

 

[Vox]

And we would be remiss if we did not especially note Trayvon's possession of burglary tools at school......

Burglary is exactly what "casing" houses is all about.

And that's what attracted the attention to Trayvon Martin in the first place.

:ind:

 

[blackjack50]

Whatever Situation I'm in I'll make sure whoever is questioning it knows.

You can spare the tough guy routine. I don't really care. If you go heels, you have a responsibility to society. If someone wants to attack you unarmed...and you decide to shoot them...you better make sure you are within the law. And your sake you better hope you can justify it morally. Killing someone isn't to be taken lightly. Unless you a psychopath. Then we can only hope you (royal you) die before you do much harm. We have enough personality disorders in our society.

Like I said before...pulling a gun isn't done lightly. And you can talk tough here on the interwebz...but prosecutors may be able to find this website. Or other social media references. Or cell phones. And talking about a complete disregard for the law and a preference for Shooting first so that you don't have to worry about the story of the other guy...or whatever the hell you are playing at? That doesn't bode well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

Saw it, read it..
'
how is this relevant?

Because "unarmed" killings derive from an environment of pervasive black-on-black crime.