All George Zimmerman Threads

[Cochese]

The death threats I have personally seen, made on Facebook, against an entire ethnic group over the Trayvon thing speaks very poorly about those that are making those disgusting, violent remarks.

I hate to include this but you need to see a sample of what is being said. This is NOT from me mind you, but the friend of one of my nieces husbands...

" I AM GOING TO GO AND SHOOT A MEXICAN MALE NOW AND SEE IF I CAN CLAIM SELF DEFENSE BECAUSE I AM TOO WEAK TO FIGHT HIM OFF SO I AM GOING TO SHOOT HIM IN THE CHEST."

My brother in law, the father of that niece could pass for George Zimmerman if he was 20 years older.

Gawker is already a hate filled group of hive minded individuals, but the comments I read there were just awful. I'm really hoping they represent a minority of our country, but I fear not.

I don't think the case can be discussed without emotion, because I think that was the only reason the trial took place in the first place. Justice wasn't sought, revenge was.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

[dbhost]

I am amazed at the filthy nasty remarks I read on FB and other sites concerning this trial verdict. Shows me that we are not as civilized as I had thought.

Conwaygolfer

The death threats I have personally seen, made on Facebook, against an entire ethnic group over the Trayvon thing speaks very poorly about those that are making those disgusting, violent remarks.

I hate to include this but you need to see a sample of what is being said. This is NOT from me mind you, but the friend of one of my nieces husbands...

" I AM GOING TO GO AND SHOOT A MEXICAN MALE NOW AND SEE IF I CAN CLAIM SELF DEFENSE BECAUSE I AM TOO WEAK TO FIGHT HIM OFF SO I AM GOING TO SHOOT HIM IN THE CHEST."

My brother in law, the father of that niece could pass for George Zimmerman if he was 20 years older.

[dbhost]

I must have missed something in this discussion.
I don't remember reading anything that mentioned any political party, nor any religion. I'm not sure whether those two subjects even were mentioned in the trial.

There have been no direct statements, but some very carefully worded skirting just next to going over that edge by certain posters. Particularly with reference with right to carry, stand your ground, racial profiling and other controversial topics are also topics being hotly debated in the realm of the American political system right now.

For the most part this thread seems pretty civil, but it is very close to that edge, partially due to the high emotion that this subject carries for many.

[conwaygolfer]

I am amazed at the filthy nasty remarks I read on FB and other sites concerning this trial verdict. Shows me that we are not as civilized as I had thought.

Conwaygolfer

[annunaki]

I must have missed something in this discussion.
I don't remember reading anything that mentioned any political party, nor any religion. I'm not sure whether those two subjects even were mentioned in the trial.

[dbhost]

Gentlemen,

This discussion is full of discussion of a political / religious / racial nature. While none of the posts I have read thus far have crossed the line, this entire thread treads dangerously close to that line. Please remain courteous to your fellow members, and keep on the correct side of the rules. We do not want to have to take adminsitrative action, however this topic has the potential for doing a lot of damage to our community here.

[JimD]

When we look at statistics we have to remember that they do not tell us what we want to know about any individual sample. Because crime is disproportionately committed by black males (mostly on other black males) it does not mean that TM was a criminal.

I think blacks feel this more so than whites. There are many honest, law abiding black people who are tired of people looking at them like they are criminals. I synphathize with them. I think they deserve to be treated as individuals just like I want to be.

Jim

[annunaki]

" It seems he would be followed by security for sure if he was dressed like TM and possibly even if professionally dressed. I never have noticed surveillance but I can see where it would get tiring. Other black males have undoubtedly been an issue but does that mean EVERY black male is a suspect?"

Again -From Neal Boorts_

FROM THE WHITE PERSPECTIVE:

Bluntly stated, whites are simply fed up with the high level of violence brought to many cities by young black males. Whites seem to intuitively know that when they hear of a robbery, a car jacking or a murder, chances are the person committing the crime is going to be black. Then, when the arrest is made and the picture shows up in the paper or on TV, their suspicions are vindicated. If the suspect turns out to be white it’s an anamoly.

White women are tired of being called racists because they instinctively lock their car doors when they see a young black male approaching them in a parking lot. You get the point.

Whites have heard the statistics … they know that although black males make up only a shade over six percent of our population, 42% of murder victims are black. Homicide rates for blacks are seven times that for whites. If a white person is robbed it will be by a black 47% of the time. The robber will be another white 37% of the time. (Here’s your link).

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...8911/index.htm

Even though whites realize that the bulk of violent crimes are committed by blacks, they believe the media works hard trying to cover this statistic up. They watch TV commercials for home alarm companies where the burglars, intruders, home invaders – whatever – are always white. The see the absurdity of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution printing mug shots of wanted black criminals, and in order to avoid suggesting that the suspect has a prior criminal history (what a surprise that would be!) they caption the picture as So-and-So “posing for a photo.” They see TV anchors reading the description of a criminal suspect, but pointedly leaving out the suspect’s race. In the end this is all seen as an absurd politically correct attempt to protect the black community from a widespread recognition of the culture of violence and puts so many young black males into graves or prisons.

Whites read or hear about the “no snitching” rule in some black communities. Here they are, committing all those crimes, and they won’t even report the criminals and gang bangers to the police so that they can be arrested and taken off the streets.

Then there’s the absurd “profiling” thing. People profile! There isn’t an adult in this country living in close proximity to other people who doesn’t, on a daily basis, engage in some sort of profiling. If you’re walking down the street and you need to ask directions you are far more likely to approach a businessman in a suit, or a woman in sports clothes than you are some hoodie-wearing black teenager with his pants buckled around his ass and six inches of his pants dragging the ground. If you’re trying to find the shoe section of a department store you are going to look for someone wearing a nametag. That’s profiling! Profiling is a tool of daily survival. Whites perceive this whole “profiling is bad” argument as an attempt by the black community to shield themselves from the societal consequences of the high level of criminal activity occurring in their neighborhoods. Whites are hearing “Yeah … we know where the crime is coming from, but don’t you dare act on that knowledge. That would be profiling!”
- See more at: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-....1ZlRNrBG.dpuf

[annunaki]

"My wife and I disagree on this but GZ had the legal right to have a gun with him. She says this means he was out looking for trouble."

That's illogical and makes as much sense as saying if you are carrying a spare tire in your car, you're looking for a flat. Using a seat belt - you're looking for an accident. Wearing a helmet on your motor/bi cycle...........

[JimD]

I think some of the emotion over this has to do with how black males are treated. We had a professional in our group that always dressed up to go shopping. I asked him why once. It seems he would be followed by security for sure if he was dressed like TM and possibly even if professionally dressed. I never have noticed surveillance but I can see where it would get tiring. Other black males have undoubtedly been an issue but does that mean EVERY black male is a suspect?

On the other hand, I don't see anything in the call or testimony demonstrating this was about TM's skin color. I think GZ believed TM was a thief and wanted to stop him or get him arrested.

My wife and I disagree on this but GZ had the legal right to have a gun with him. She says this means he was out looking for trouble. I don't think so and legally that doesn't show any evil intent. If you have a permit (she does, I do not) you can carry. If you are at risk, you can use your weapon. GZ had enough injuries it is hard to say he was not at risk.

I am not saying GZ is a great guy or that I know he isn't racist. I am just saying there are not enough facts to charge him with second degree murder. He was charged because of pressure. That same public opinon pressure is now being applied to charge him with something else. I think it should stop.

Jim

[annunaki]

Nobody has argued that Zimmerman actually chased and physically caught Martin that night. NOBODY. They said he “followed” or “stalked,” but NEVER physically chased and ran down Martin. That would be ridiculous. Zimmerman 5’8″ and 200 pounds, Martin 5’11,″ 155-160 and a decade younger — do you really think he chased him down and physically caught him? Or is it more likely that after Zimmerman turned around and walked back to his truck, Martin came to him and wanted to know what his problem was? Did anyone in this case say anything about Zimmerman starting the physical confrontation? That’s what this case was really about. Who physically attacked whom? They were both mistaken. They both made bad decisions. But, who started the physical confrontation? If it was Zimmerman, he should have been convicted. The evidence did not bear that out. The prosecution did not make that case. The defense’s case relied on the jury believing Martin threw the first blow. It was successful in proving that.

[Cochese]

I couldn't disagree more!

And the reasons are many. One does not arm themselves, then report to the police using racial comments, and then ignore the police warning and track the victim to the point where a physical altercation occurs. The person who stood their ground was the person killed.

Place yourself in a situation where you are walking home and someone starts following you. You are unarmed, but this unknown person is dogging you and you don't know his intent. What would you do? Stand your ground or run?

Did the victim try to ignore the assailant, try to get away, or was he accosted? What did Zimmerman say to Martin that would have prompted physical contact? None of this is known of course. What we do know is that one was prepared for trouble, purposely decided to follow, and purposely made contact, and thus being armed was fully prepared to win the prompted altercation.

Without being in that court and hearing and seeing all of the evidence leaves some questions of course. But I'm not even close to thinking that justice was done here. Some of the things that I did see were highly questionable though (like that hunk of concrete). I still don't understand the six-person jury, and why two of those were NRA-pro gun members. Also, with race being a reasonable motivation by Zimmerman to follow and confront the victime, why was there no balance to the jury?

While this may NOT be a political discussion, I do think it is highly provacative.

CWS

http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...zimmerman.html

I might have to have that pointed out to me.

[annunaki]

From former Talk Radio Host & Lawyer Neal Boortz-

Let’s just cut to some common beliefs about the confrontation between Zimmerman and Treyvon that, though widely believed, just ain’t true. I’ll approach this by repeating some of the things we’ve heard from protestors and read in social media, and addressing them with the facts from the trial – or with a dose of common sense.

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 … 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.

ZIMMERMAN SHOT AN UNARMED TEEN WHO WAS JUST WALKING DOWN THE STREET.

I must have seen this particular charge Tweeted over 100 times in the last week or so. Again … Not only is it not true, it is absurdly wrong.

The evidence shows that at the time Treyvon was shot he was sitting astride Zimmerman and beating his head into the ground. The testimony of the expert witness on this was not only compelling but was uncontested. Sitting on someone’s chest and pounding on them is not “just walking down the street.”

ZIMMERMAN SHOT SOMEONE WHO HAD A BAG OF SKITTLES AND SOME ICE TEA

Really? This is supposed to be a meaningful point? Is there something magical about Skittles to the effect that if you happen to be in possession of these colorful candies you are unable to harm another human being?

FINALLY … WAS IT SELF DEFENSE?

There’s one oddity, or curiosity, if you will, about this case that I haven’t seen addressed anywhere else. It involves Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

At one point in this saga Zimmerman was following Treyvon Martin. If, at that point, Treyvon had felt threatened and a confrontation with Zimmerman ensued, and if that confrontation ended with the death of Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin could seek protection under the Stand Your Ground Law. But the testimony was that at some point Zimmerman stopped following Treyvon and headed back to his car. At this point, according to testimony, Treyvon started following Zimmerman. If Zimmerman is retreating and Treyvon becomes the aggressor … the Stand Your Ground protection shifts to Zimmerman. Zimmerman testified that Treyvon approached him and asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman says he said “no” and Treyvon responded, “now you have a problem” and slugged Zimmerman. We all know what happened next.

Now bear in mind – though the jury didn’t know this – there is ample evidence from Treyvon’s phone of text messages between Treyvon and his pals about initiating and participating in fights. There was also evidence that Treyvon was trying to purchase a gun. These are hardly the actions of an angelic kid who’s only interest is in Skittles and an Arizona iced tea.



WHAT THE JURY HAD TO DECIDE

First of all … the 2nd degree murder charge was out the window. The state attorney over-charged on this and she knew it. Then came Angela Corey’s asinine attempt to have Zimmerman charged with child abuse. That went nowhere.

The jury had one thing – and only one thing – to decide. Was it reasonable for George Zimmerman to believe that he was about to suffer great bodily harm or imminent death? Whether you like the law or not, that’s the standard. Zimmerman had no obligation to calculate whether or not he could protect himself from Martin in a fight. He had no obligation to compare weights. All that was needed was for Zimmerman to reasonably fear that Treyvon Martin was going to do him great bodily harm or perhaps kill him. Zimmerman knew it was not unheard of for young black males to kill or severely injure someone in a fight. He already thought his nose was broken. His head had been bounced off the concrete several times. He knew that his attacker was taller and in better shape than he. Zimmerman knew better than anyone that he wasn’t much of a fighter (based on testimony from his martial arts instructor). So … did Zimmerman feel that he needed to use deadly force to avoid severe injuries or death? That was the jury’s ONLY question, and they decided that Zimmerman could have reasonably felt he was about to be hurt badly or killed.

The verdict .. not guilty.
- See more at: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-....rBtuaFN4.dpuf

[cwsmith]

I couldn't disagree more!

And the reasons are many. One does not arm themselves, then report to the police using racial comments, and then ignore the police warning and track the victim to the point where a physical altercation occurs. The person who stood their ground was the person killed.

Place yourself in a situation where you are walking home and someone starts following you. You are unarmed, but this unknown person is dogging you and you don't know his intent. What would you do? Stand your ground or run?

Did the victim try to ignore the assailant, try to get away, or was he accosted? What did Zimmerman say to Martin that would have prompted physical contact? None of this is known of course. What we do know is that one was prepared for trouble, purposely decided to follow, and purposely made contact, and thus being armed was fully prepared to win the prompted altercation.

Without being in that court and hearing and seeing all of the evidence leaves some questions of course. But I'm not even close to thinking that justice was done here. Some of the things that I did see were highly questionable though (like that hunk of concrete). I still don't understand the six-person jury, and why two of those were NRA-pro gun members. Also, with race being a reasonable motivation by Zimmerman to follow and confront the victime, why was there no balance to the jury?

While this may NOT be a political discussion, I do think it is highly provacative.

CWS

[JimD]

GZ will undoubtedly make money off his situatuion so maybe it will work out for him financially. Maybe he even gets a job out of the situation, I hope so. I share the sentiment that the ability of the prosecutor to take a person to trial is a form of punishment, however. There should be a resourse. Maybe there was enough to go to trial in this case but it seemed like it should have been dropped. Maybe GZis lying but his verson of the events has him essentially doing nothing wrong. Without substantial evidence otherwise, it seems like the prosecution was hoping the jury would ignore the evidence.