All George Zimmerman Threads

[vaking]

government to charge GZ in a civil case. And many KNOW it will be the same verdict as this last trial.

I am not a lawyer but I don't think this is a valid option. GZ had been brought on criminal charges by the state and jury found him not guilty. The verdict might be appealed if there were any procedural violations in the trial. Jury decision itself cannot be appealed. Not likely but possible. Besides the appeal there are two other options.
Federal government can charge GZ in another criminal case in hate/racial crime. For that the feds will have to prove that GZ is a racist. GZ in the past had owned a company together with black partner - proving he is a racist will be very hard. I don't believe we shall see this case happen.
Family of TM can bring civil charges of wrongful death. Government cannot bring civil case. GZ's lawyer after the verdict effectively challenged the TM's family to bring this case.

[leehljp]

The jury decided to vote not guilty.

This should be the bottom line.

SHOULD be!

Another perspective on where the "divide" is:
While this is not drawn across racial lines explicitly, it does follow some interesting patterns that are developing in our multiculture blending and fusing of cultures.

This country was founded with laws that was aimed primarily at individuals and individual freedom, and individual choice. Our governmental system, which has Europe and ancient Greece and even Rome as our foundation, was set up to work with a culture that served "individuals" and allowed masses of individuals to work together. "Individuals" are people who value their own preferences regardless of their culture or race or group, or whatever. The founding US governmental system is/was a system to facilitate individuals to work and live together in a society, with built in respect for others. We vote, and respect the outcome even if we lose; conversely, and if we win an election, we expect the other group to honor and respect our win.

Enter the second type of culture - built not upon individual freedoms, but "group/collective mindset". I lived in a culture for over 25 years that was a group mindset and they are proud of it and will publically advocate that. To the East of that country are two countries in which the people of those countries are proud to be Asian, but they are still individuals. However, in said country, these people are proud of their heritage, but they do NOT value themselves as individuals, they value themselves as "groups". They respond in groups, they think in "groups" when decisions are to be made, they have trouble making individual decisions in many cases. It is not a matter of "can't make up their mind," it is a cultural difference.

A law system developed to make individuals work together as society is very difficult for groups mindset societies. And conversely again, group mindset laws and government plays havoc on individuals. The divide of America (USA) is going on at this level in this case and in others. It is not a "racial" divide as much as it is a philosophical and cultural divide brought on by influx of immigrants and a fusion of their and our old cultures. The real turning point started way back when, but it was the 1920's when the US began to migrate away from being an agrarian nation and into an urban nation. This is when the slow but sure acceleration of "individual freedoms" versus "social reponsibility" differences began to emerge and change.

That brings me to this: Individuals will generally go with "facts of a case," and "group/social mindset" focuses more on feelings and affinity, and also place less value on all of the facts; or they will attribute major value to a "single" that favors them versus a plethora of facts to the contrary. Individuals, on the other hand, tend to not allow feelings and affinity affect their judgement.

In my own observation of these paterns over years (not scientific) is that "individuals" will follow and decide based on facts 75% to 95% of the time, and ignore feelings or affinity; however, group mindsets will follow affinity 60% to 75% of the time and ignore facts or give weight to one sided facts or truths. This has been my observations from years of watching people and how they act and make decisions.

The above is dangerously close to what is called profiling, but knowing this is what advertisers do, and it is what makes advertising successful.

I remember watching a TV interview at a presidential election back in the '90s to which this was said: One party makes very logical business decisions but has no heart; the other party makes heartfelt decisions but has not logic or business sense. Different philosophies and different cultures. That about sums it up.

[annunaki]

'Churches' denouncing Zimmerman exposed

'Churches' denouncing Zimmerman exposed

Religious council long-time front group for old Soviet KGB

The National Council of Churches, calling itself “the leading force for shared ecumenical witness among Christians in the United States,” is blasting the jury, George Zimmerman, and America too – charging the nation’s citizens and even its churches with pervasive racism.But as it turns out, the organization has gotten into serious trouble for making that same claim in the past.

In March 1996, a sensational story jolted the American conscience. The National Council of Churches (NCC) and the Center for Democratic Renewal (CDR), two secretly Marxist organizations headquartered in the United States, held a joint press conference to announce a “huge increase” in the number of arson cases committed against black churches in the United States.

On June 8, President Bill Clinton denounced those fires in a radio address, and he proposed a new federal task force to investigate them. The president spoke with emotion about his own “vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state [of Arkansas] when I was a child.” Charging that “racial hostility” was the driving force behind the fires, he pledged to place the full power of the federal government behind the investigation. On June 15, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives assigned two hundred federal agents to a new task force charged to investigate black church fires.1 By July the accounts of arson committed against black churches had snowballed, with more than twenty-two hundred articles appearing in the press to condemn what the Center for Democratic Renewal called “a well-organized white-supremacist movement.”

Then the bubble burst. It was eventually established by a private group, the National Fire Protection Association, that in recent years there had been far fewer church fires than usual, and law enforcement officials in the South could not confirm any as having been racially motivated. No church burning had occurred in Arkansas during Clinton’s childhood, in spite of his “vivid and painful” memories, and the National Council of Churches was accused of fabricating “a great church-fire hoax.”

The clue to understanding the significance of the black church arson hoax lies in the documented fact that the World Council of Churches, which ignited and promoted that story, has been infiltrated and ultimately controlled by Russian intelligence since 1961. The Mitrokhin Archive, a voluminous collection of Soviet foreign intelligence documents smuggled out of the Soviet Union in 1992, provides the identities and Soviet intelligence code names of many Russian Orthodox priests dispatched over the years to the World Council of Churches for the specific purpose of influencing the politics and decisions of that body. In fact, in 1972 Soviet intelligence managed to have Metropolitan Nikodim (its agent “Adamant”) elected WCC president. A 1989 KGB document boasts: “Now the agenda of the WCC is also our agenda.” Most recently, Metropolitan Kirill (agent “Mikhaylov”), who had been an influential representative to the World Council of Churches since 1971 and after 1975 a member of the WCC Central Committee, was in 2009 elected patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The church fire hoax, resulted in the United States being slandered internationally.

[annunaki]

I learned about Rockefeller & Model T at David Blume's site-

http://www.permaculture.com/node/1331

" It really is sickening that the mass of people are reacting the way they are."

I think many of them are opportunists that want looting to start so as to get free stuff.

There is a Black American that has a you tube video totally against those opportunists.
Warning He uses Strong Language which might be offensive to some but if you can get passed that, he makes some interesting observations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sL2f0PoqME

[RAFlorida]

You're right Don, there's pressure on the

government to charge GZ in a civil case. And many KNOW it will be the same verdict as this last trial. When that trial fails,(fails to the desires of the ignorant mass), I, like many others fear there will be some rioting across the nation. The majority of people are acting by emotional stimuli, not accepting the facts that were produced at the trial of GZ, nor the facts that Annunaki has pointed out. It really is sickening that the mass of people are reacting the way they are.
(thanks Annunaki for your posting of the Rockefeller scandal. My grandfather despised that man and his companies.)

[Pappy]

The jury decided to vote not guilty.

This should be the bottom line. Since none of us were in the courtroom the entire time and heard all the evidence presented from both sides, we can't say for sure how we would have voted.

Unfortunately, political pressure is going to make the feds look at the case again, maybe resulting in other charges. If they don't bring charges, or if they do and he is found not guilty again, I fear there are radical factions that will go after Zimmerman and/or his family.

[annunaki]

One of the toughest Gun Control Laws in the Country is The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a gun control law in New York State.

Few people know the true story of how the Mob bribed politicians to get it passed so as to disarm the Longshoremen (who would risk loosing their license to work the Docks- once it passed), so that the Mob could then control New York's Waterfront.

[annunaki]

Ps

During these same years, a journalist/crusader named Ida Tarbell was waging a war against Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust, revealing it to be a monopoly in the worst way, with bribery, price-fixing and corrupt tactics as the tricks of the trade that Standard Oil used to crush or buy out all their competitors. The documents that Tarbell was able to publish were successful in destroying the monopoly by 1911, meanwhile revealing Rockefeller to be hardly a political progressive – the wanton abuse of employee rights and consumer fairness plus multiple instances of illegal coercion were testaments to a personal character miles from that of a Boy Scout.

Ironically, the breakup of the Standard Oil Trust had the curious effect of making him the richest man in the world. Stock prices doubled for all the companies that were spun off from the Trust, and made Rockefeller that much richer than before. The reduction in price-fixing meant prices became more affordable for consumers and thus there was incentive for consumers and car producers to adopt gasoline-powered automobiles over alcohol-powered ones. But this wasn’t enough, as the constant availability of alcohol meant it wouldn’t be enough to effect any sea change in consumer habits. Thus, Prohibition.

By making the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol illegal, this meant that farmers could no longer generate ethanol and other similar alcohols for vehicle use, and even if they had a pre-existent supply, could not legally sell it. This destroyed any possibility that alcohol could continue as a fuel of choice, neither for the fuel-sellers, automobile purchasers or automobile producers. Rather quickly, the alcohol-powered models were phased out and gasoline-powered vehicles became the standard.

Even more beneficial was the fact that 1918-1933 were the boom years for the expansion of the automobile to all regions of the country. With one fuel standard and the mass explosion in automobile sales, Rockefeller’s companies had little to no competition in fuel sales and was making money hand over fist. By the time Prohibition was repealed in 1933, there was no turning back to alcohol fuels.

As alcohol fuels were generally cheaper than oil fuels, the American public ended up paying dearly for the change. All the money they ‘lost’ was funneled into Rockefeller’s hands, maintaining his status as richest man in the world – which persists even to this day. Barring Marcus Licinius Crassus, whose properties covered the entire Roman Empire during his time and is unestimable as to current worth, Rockefeller is considered the richest man ever. In 1916, he was the first man to reach a personal fortune of $1 billion, and his personal worth at his death, adjusted to 2010 dollars, is estimated to have been somewhere in the range of $500 to $600 billion.

Adding insult to injury, Prohibition increased the amount of crime in the United States to hitherto unknown levels, created new miseries for the average citizen and actually helped reverse industrialization during the period by shutting down hundreds of large-scale plants around the United States, increasing unemployment and encouraging home-made primitive methods of alcohol production. Rockefeller may have felt guilty at these outcomes by 1932, when he finally admitted to Prohibition’s failure and openly approved of Repeal.

[annunaki]

Always remember those opportunists whose attitude is to never waste a good catastrophe, and employ useful idiots to fan the flames of distorted truths.

In the end it's usually about power and money.

A classic example was Prohibition which was instituted with ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 16, 1919. The useful idiots of the day were Women's Christian Temperance Union.

The real story involved Americas first Flex-Fuel car - The Model T.
Rockefeller, gasoline and Prohibition.

Alcohol is 105 Octane, Gas back then was only 50 Octane, so the model T ran better on alcohol as do today's Indy500 Race Cars

Prior to Prohibition, passed as the 18th Amendment in 1919, most American cars used alcohol as fuel. Henry Ford’s Model T actually came in two versions, one being a version that allowed drivers to switch their carburetor so people could use farm-made alcohols as an alternate fuel. This was because 90% of America were farms at that point, so alcohol was a much more plentiful fuel source. Petroleum had not yet become an ubiquitous standard across America; there were not gas stations dotting every single community in the land. With alcohol engines, drivers could stop at any farm and fuel up, essentially anywhere.

At the turn of the 20th century, Standard Oil, owned by magnate John Rockefeller Jr., had consolidated a monopoly within the oil industry by effectively shutting down or buying out all other competitors. Unsurprisingly, Standard Oil was unhappy about the availability of alcohol as a fuel as it limited consumer demand for their oil products. A lifelong teetotaler, Rockefeller had been an avid fan of temperance for a long time and found the support of temperance by statute to be a solution that fulfilled both his moral and economical goals.
In order to crush alcohol-makers out of existence, Rockefeller donated $350,323.67 to the Anti-Saloon League (worth $5 million in 2010 dollars) in the two decades before the passing of Prohibition. The ASL, along with Rockefeller’s public moral support and private backroom dealing with legislators, was enormously effective in influencing the public and Congress to pass the deal.

So just as the Constitution was amended with the awful 18th, look for additional attacks on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution twisting and distorting the facts in this case.

[dbhost]

dbhost

Good Analysis !

Thanks.

I am trying carefully not to take sides on this at all. I can certainly see both sides of the issue, and want to know as much as I can about what really happened, and who did what. The knee jerking and lynch mob attitudes I am seeing from both sides of this issue are downright frightening, and no good for the overall civility of our nation...

[annunaki]

dbhost

Good Analysis !

[cabinetman]

Do we know how we would react in that split second of interaction. People can say this or that, and maybe most of those saying who should have done what have never been in a situation where the decision is life threatening...on either player.

That physical confrontation was a relatively momentary interaction. Within seconds, it escalated to a moment of reaction, not withstanding the repercussions of ones actions. There was likely very little thinking. So, what I'm saying is that neither GZ or TM mulled out a plan when the action was close, and the onset of what happened could have gone a different way. There was an interaction, that had its consequences.

I doubt seriously that either of them had second nature training in physical contact. My military training instilled whatever defenses and offenses necessary to quell a close combat situation. My training leaves little doubt about my reactions, or what they would be even to this date. We become different people. I've been in those momentary predicaments, and if I took the time to think out my choices instead of reacting, I wouldn't be here typing this right now.

I'm also repeating myself, that we can discuss the case 'til the cows come home. We won't change anything by even extensive analysis of the details of the case. The jury decided to vote not guilty. What is interesting though, is the extensive analysis that the contributing members have provided. Very interesting.

So, what I'm saying is that neither GZ or TM mulled out a plan when the action was close, and the onset of what happened could have gone a different way. There was an interaction, that had its consequences.

.

[dbhost]

Before I post this reply, PLEASE understand I am not arguing for or against anything here. Please do not take offense to this post. I know it is pointed, but the points are meant to, like the point of a shovel, to dig for information that I just don't have, and a deeper understanding of this whole tragedy. Just trying to get answers to the questions I have about this. I see a lot of assumptions from people about Trayvon, about George Zimmerman, and about the law that I either don't know anything about, or that I have seen contradictory testimony and evidence, that I would like to get answered.

... Also completely irrelavent is whether the kid used drugs, had any drugs in his past, had any relationship with drugs or drug dealers... and whether or not he ever had questionable valueables on him at some time in the past.

Actually it IS relevant if he was currently doped up, not in his right mind, and under the influence of substances that could have altered his judgement and made him more aggressive, that is absolutely relevant.

What is relavent is that GZ called in to the police a suspicious character. That GZ felt it necessary to arm himself, and that inspite of the police dispatch telling him to NOT pursue, he ignored it and went after TM.

According to Ammendment 2 to the Constitution of The United States of America, where the incident occoured, he was guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

As I understand it, the Police / 911 dispatcher told GZ they did not "need him" to follow Trayvon. I could be wrong, but I do not believe they directly told him do not do XYZ. If you have a link to the audio of that 911 call segment where they dispatcher instructs him so, I would like to see it posted.

Now someone said that the dispatcher was not a police officer, as if that should have made a difference. First off, the dispatcher was an employee of the police and in every instance that I know of, has the training and the responsibility to advise anyone who calls in. They speak with the authority of the police dept. SO, GZ did ignore the police warning and took it upon himself to take his weapon and follow TM to the point of confrontation and the eventual death of TM. That in any fair court system would place the results squarely on the shoulders of GZ. Perhaps not murder, but manslaughter would be likely I believe.

I believe in New York where you live, there was a 911 / EMT dispatcher that recently was let off the hook for not assisting a pregnant woman that had some sort of seizure who eventually died, because that 911 dispatcher was "on her break". Different states have different laws regarding the authority of a dispatcher, in many states they have no more authority than a parking lot attendant. And again the issue of GZ being armed is irrelevant. It is his right that he used. It could have just as easily been a convenient clump of concrete he picked up in the scuffle and smashed Trayvon's skull in during the struggle. The gun is NOT the issue. The issue is WHO assaulted WHO. The fact that Trayvon lost the fight, does NOT mean he didn't start it. I am not saying he did, I am not saying Zimmerman did. I simply have not seen any evidence to show who assaulted who. Clearly according to the testimony of Rachael Jeantel, Zimmerman scared and annoyed Martin. But scared and annoyed doesn't necessarily mean HE started the altercation, it doesn't mean he didn't. But if he did, it also does not excuse it.

Look, here in NY if I discover someone robbing my house, I have a right to protect my family... IF I FEEL THREATENED! But, if upon hearing me coming down the stairs, the felon flees... I have no right whatsoever in shooting the thief. And, if I call the police and they tell me to stay put, and instead I pursue the thief... I still do not have a right to fire at him. And if the thief turns on me, and attacks me and I then kill him in self-defence, then and only then might the shooting be justified. BUT, I'm sure there would be a great deal to be made of whether or not I prompted the fight simply by my pursuit. IN all likelyhood I would be subject to manslaughter based on the fact that the death need never to have happened if I had not brought the incident upon myself in defiance of the police advisement and the willful pursuit with intent to carry out my armed apprehension of the thief.

Okay that is all well and good. Again show me where Zimmerman was instructed to not leave his vehicle. (I am not trying to be jerkish here, that is something I keep hearing that I haven't found, and suspect it is a media fabrication, I want proof!). Now assume that they just told him they don't need him to do whatever instead of don't do whatever (HUGE difference by the way, one is a suggestion, the other is a command.). As far as I can tell it is still legal to exit your vehicle in your own neighborhood. From the evidence I have heard, he had no intention of apprehending Martin, merely observing where he was going. That may be annoying, but as far as I can tell, is still legal.

While the intent of GZ was not necessarily murder, his motivation, and action resulted in the death of TM. TM's drug addiction and past actions have not been proven to be in effect on that night. There was no proof that he was armed, no proof that he had robbed anyone and I have not read where anyone, on that night or recent nights had been robbed in that immediate area.

I do agree with your statement there. To a certain extent. You are assuming what GZ's motives were, and that it was his actions specifically that lead to Martin's death. As I understand the testimony that I heard, Trayvon was slipping in and out from between houses, on private property, not just strolling along the sidewalk. Zimmerman got out of his car to see where he had gone. Again if you have links of testimony that shows otherwise, please post them.

Regarding the "concrete" issue. I must have missed that somewhere! The eyewitness reported that the fight took place on the grass and not on the sidewalk. Unless it was reported otherwise, the issue of GZ having his head slammed against "concrete" is conjecture and contrary to the initial eyewitness who stated that they were tussleing on the grass, and it's contrary to the initial reports of grass stain and dampness on GZ's jacket. So, unless there was follow-up proof of the sidewalk being used to bash in GZ's head, the defense had no right whatsoever to introduce that hunk of concrete into the trial. It has been stated by the jury (today) that such "evidence" was a swaying factor.

Maybe I am wrong, I have mashed my knee on concrete enough times to know what a concrete / flesh would looks like, and the back of GZ's head looked to me to be consistent with that. Now I am no forensics expert, but did they take samples of debris from the wound to verify if that indeed was caused by concrete? Zimmerman himself in the Fox interview, that the fight started with him down on the concrete, and he scooted to the grass. I don't know. Again, where is the evidence?

Certainly, it's a good argument that TM should have walked away and should not have attacked GZ. BUT, what do we really know about what provoked this action. Did GZ say something, use a slur as he had with the initial call in to the police,

What slur did he use on the 911 call that could have justified an assault? He could have thrown a million N-words at Trayvon and that still wouldn't have justified physical assault. As far as I have heard, the only phrase used that could be considered slur like is he referred to Trayvon as looking like a "punk".

...Did TM simply, and irrationally, turn and attack the person who was questioning him and following him. We don't know! Stupid move for sure, but then youth doesn't always act wisely... but if GZ had followed the police advice and not followed and provoked this altercation, the death would NOT have occurred... and we do know that.

On the police "advice" versus command issue. IF Trayvon did turn and attack Zimmerman, then THAT is the event that precipitated Trayvon's death. NOT Zimmerman getting out of his car, or even having a firearm, again a constitutionally guaranteed right. There is no right to physically assault another human being. I don't know about other states, but I DO know, that here in Texas, if you are in the act of committing a felony such as assault, and a person dies because of your actions, say an elderly woman witnessing the assault has a heart attack and dies because of the shock of the scene, then YOU the perpetrator of the initial felony, can be found guilty of 2nd degree murder. The issue is NOT or at least it should not, and should never have been about Zimmerman carrying a gun, or getting out of his vehicle, or even if he should have been watching where Martin was going in the first place. The big question e, WHO initiated the assault that led to Trayvon's death. If Trayvon did indeed throw the first punch, and jump on top and start pummeling Zimmerman, then I would think that the blame would fall on Martin himself. This goes back to your first point about Martin's background and personality. Since there are no direct witnesses aside from Zimmerman as to who initiated the fight, we can only look at the history and personality of the involved parties to see who would have been more likely to initiate the altercation.

Another possibly culpable party to this is that Rachael Jeantel, which brings yet another layer of prejudice to this whole thing, telling Martin on the phone that Zimmerman could have been a Gay rapist. Did Martin turn on, and assault Zimmerman in some sort of twisted "Gay bashing" thing?

[annunaki]

What is relavent is that GZ called in to the police a suspicious character. That GZ felt it necessary to arm himself, and that inspite of the police dispatch telling him to NOT pursue, he ignored it and went after TM.

WRONG

"THE POLICE TOLD ZIMMERMAN TO STOP FOLLOWING TREYVON"

Sorry, but that’s not true.. That discussion was with a 911 dispatcher who was not a police officer. The conversation went like this:

Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”

Zimmerman; “Yeah.”

Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”

Zimmerman; “OK.”

At no time did a police officer order Zimmerman to stop following Treyvon Martin. In fact, nobody ordered him to stop following Martin … Zimmerman was just told that he didn’t “need” to follow him.

" SO, GZ did ignore the police warning and took it upon himself to take his weapon and follow TM to the point of confrontation"

WRONG

So … did Zimmerman continuing following Treyvon at this point? There was no evidence presented at trial that he did. Zimmerman’s testimony was that he headed back to his car.

AS far as "TAKE HIS WEAPON" you make it sound like he had to remove/take it from some place and had it in his hand. HE WAS WEARING IT ON HIS HIP IN ITS HOLSTER.

" And if the thief turns on me, and attacks me and I then kill him in self-defence, then and only then might the shooting be justified. BUT, I'm sure there would be a great deal to be made of whether or not I prompted the fight simply by my pursuit. IN all likelyhood I would be subject to manslaughter based on the fact that the death need never to have happened if I had not brought the incident upon myself in defiance of the police advisement and the willful pursuit with intent to carry out my armed apprehension of the thief."

TOTAL NONSENSE You have every right to apprehend, detain, and in some states make a "citizen's arrest"

As to GZ carrying his weapon, Florida is a Right to Carry State if a person has a CC License -which he did. If a person has a CC Permit and leaves his gun at home he may as well not have one. You can never know when a situation might occur where you might need your weapon and when that happens you can't "Call Time -Out", so you can run home to get it. That would be as Stupid as leaving your spare tire at home in the garage.
A gun, like a spare tire, is something you hope you never have to use, but if you do, you're very glad you have it.

As a Retired NYPD Det. as well as a former Fla LEO, I speak from years of investigative experience gleaned from both New York and Florida working in Organized Crime Control Bureau, Narcotics, Joint Task Force Units (DEA, US Customs, Coast Guard, NYPD) cases, as well as having a Secret Service Clearance for Liaison between SS & NYPD.

[woodturner]

that inspite of the police dispatch telling him to NOT pursue, he ignored it and went after TM.

FWIW, the police dispatcher did not tell GZ not to pursue - there was no warning or direction from the dispatcher. The comment was that they "did not need him to do that", according to the transcripts released.