One less ****** filling our jails.
Zimmerman is an american hero and should be treated as such
Zimmerman is an american hero and should be treated as such
-
Comment -
Shari,
I have been to the deepest "whitest" parts of the south and I have also been to the deepest "blackest" parts of the northeast I have seen racism from both sides of the pool and am not going to be naive enough to pretend like racism only comes from one side.
If you would like Shari I will take you to a predominately black part of town and you and I can go for a stroll through the park.
Racism has absolutely nothing to do with this case and the only people who believe this are racist whether they realize it or not, they are profiling "whites" or in this case "hispanics" as being racist for profiling them. 2 wrongs don't make a right!!!!Comment -
I actually agree... there shouldn't be a racist element to this case at all. This was an over-zealous neighbourhood watch guy following a a stranger in his neighbourhood. I get that. Like I said, I've spent quite a bit of time in Sanford. My ex's mother used to walk us out to our car with her rottweiler and then have us call every 2 mins (back when cell phone calls cost like $4 a second until we made it home). It was a kind of crazy place and some bought into and fueled that amongst each other.
I've posted the sanitised version on here before about my experiences in Baltimore, downtown LA and Atlanta as the minority in the areas I ended up in - wasn't bloody pretty. And I've also posted my experiences about certain areas of FL, CA, Germany, London, Italy, Australia, etc as the majority in those instances. Also not awesome. I'm not sure how this blew up into a "race case". It should be about this maybe? paranoid watch guy - probably rightfully so although the guy is not perfect by any means - and a person walking around a neighbourhood - also not perfect. Nothing else. Not skin colour. Not supposed woman beatings (not charged), getting caught with empty dope baggies (seriously, most of us would've been in high school), etc.
Just state the facts. But again... one of the people is now dead. So how does that play out? The person who is around to tell their story - whether it's true or twisted - wins? I'm just not sure how anyone thinks this is a good justice system at this point, no matter which side you believe is right.Comment -
Wow, just WOW !!
do NOT say Alan Dershowitz is a racist or a conservative
Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
Comment -
You start more trolling threads than almost anyone on here. Twisting quotes, article titles, etc... So I'm going to assume you're doing the same here.
I did not say that "Zim is guilty if the evidence does not warrant a guilty verdict". I said that "some of you believe he who lasts, wins."
I personally do not care what happens in this case. It'll have no bearing on my life but I do feel pain as a mom for any parent who loses a child. Whether it be to a gunshot or from their own stupidity and/or a shonky judicial system that sees their child in prison. I also feel for those living in that area of the world as I assume if Zimmerman is not convicted, a lot of innocent people are going to bear the brunt of others acting out in anger. I remember Rodney King and I remember OJ. My father also had to relocate for awhile because of the Detroit riots of '67 (before I was born) and I had to hear about it incessantly for various reasons. I understand how passionate people can get but I hope people finally realise this is not a race thing. Just evaluate it on the facts. Pitting white vs black, hispanic vs black, white vs white, etc about a case that shouldn't be about that only puts us at the same level as slugs sliming across the Earth.Comment -
Sam,
This is just a disgusting display of injustice of law being used for selfish political gains.
Shari,
You and many others are against citizens rights to bare arms and this case has been grossly misused for the purpose of those who want to get their way (along with a mob of blacks who are looking for personal gains). You have a right to disagree with firearm rights but you nor anybody should ever have the right to strip others of those rights based on your belief, just like nobody should have the right to strip me of my rights to gamble with my money.
You and anybody else who is against rights to bare arms or rights of self defense is more than welcome to put a giant sign in your front lawn that says "this is a gun free home" and "If you assault me I will not fight back", but you can thank those who carry firearms and are prepared to defend themselves as the reason that you are safe from attackers.Comment -
Really???
I actually thought you were smarter than this sharpcat. You say random crap and don't even bother to do a 2 minute search? I'm starting to believe the whispers in the wind about you sadly.
Just to help you out, here's a post of mine on April 4th in an - OMG - gun thread:
I couldn't give a piss if people have guns. Luckily I'm not the type of person who will find herself in a situation to be shot ie I don't break into homes/businesses, I don't harass people and I'm a 37yo mother with a toddler who happens to live in a great neighbourhood in a relatively safe country at the moment. Not really a prime target. If I get shot randomly, well, there's less chance of that than there is of my dying in a car accident.
So yeah... please don't tell me what you think I believe. I know what I believe. But again: GL.Comment -
Tracer aint scared of shit son. Supposed to not want to go to jail, not be scared of it. I guess you ever go to jail for the night, you cry like a bitch in yoir cell all night.Comment -
Wait.....are you black?Comment -
Living here in Florida I have seen people protesting that I am not sure if they know why they are protesting. I playing poker with a guy the other day here in Palm beach who just got back from a rally in Orlando. I said so why are you protesting and he says a poor innocent kid got shot. I said did you know him or his family? Nope he says. I said ok thats cool, I said I dont know much about the case because I don't watch TV and he says yeah this white guy just walked over and shot him for no reason. Its funny that people will protest something that they know nothing about just to be seen. Its like those politicians that go to church to get the christian vote. This stuff snowballs and people that are blinded by others start saying the same things and the next thing you know we have a lynch mob. I guess the thing is this has turned into a race fight which it isnt. Its about a guy who was doing what he is suppose to do and that is profile and look for suspicious people. Something happened that none of us know the truth about and their was a fight and a shooting. I don't understand how this turned into white vs black with people blindly taking both sides with their colors. Its a shame this still happens in our country. Every day I see mexicans raping and kidnapping 11 year old girls, and blacks murdering each other like its nothing. I also see white people killing their wives or whatever. No one every gives a **** and I never see people protesting that. When its 2 races against each other though you would think the world is coming to a end.Comment -
Sydney is wild Shari, bikie gang wars galore lately, no wheres is safe - they takin' over!
Hell when I was a young'n & lived down your way I was dodging bullets in Toorak just because my aunty bought me expensive bread, in the end we just stopped buying Helga's because the cons outweighed the pros.
Comment -
Sorry Shari I really don't care to spend anymore than 5 seconds of my time on a post let alone dig through someones 25,000 posts over just 2 years of posting. I could also careless what a bunch of broke dikk barreled in gamblers or chat forum moderators whisper about me or what they think about my intelligence.
You suggested in an earlier post that you seem to be confused by the stand your ground law.....
I apologize if I misunderstood this statement as you being another one of the liberal nutjobs who has a problem comprehending a simple law which states......
You make a very blank argument here that really makes no sense at all. What are you suggesting? evidence is what has been required by law for many centuries now in order to prove a crime and prosecution felt that they did not have evidence to prove a crime.Florida
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; "><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.</dd></dl>776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; "><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.</dd></dl>(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; "><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.</dd></dl>(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; "><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.</dd></dl>776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; "><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or</dd><dd style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px; ">(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
</dd></dl>
Did TM have a right under law to assault GZ?
-If not than GZ had a right under law (SYG) to stand his ground. Injuries prove he was assaulted.
-If yes what evidence do you have to prove that he had a right to assault GM? because as of right now the prosecution does not have any evidence and admittedly are only going off of hearsay.
I am still trying to figure out what this "last man standing" nonsense is that you brought up because it makes no sense and has nothing to do with what is most important here which is the LAW.Comment -
Ummm, yet again you're showing your true colours.
Want to insult me? You're going to have to do better than comment on the number of posts I've made or one of the jobs I have.
I also did not state I was confused by the "Stand Your Ground" law.
Want me to break it down for you, oh mighty one? Or are you better off shilling for shit books in S&I? Nah, let's break it down based on your own shit logic.
The first point you posted: Use of force in defence of a person. You do understand one of these people had a gun, right?
Ummm yeah, I know you do.
Next.
Not home protection.
Next.
Next section - about cops. Not applicable.
Next.
And you're going to LOVE this one. Since you have no bloody clue what happened - did Zimmerman provoke that force? Did he? Did he? You don't know. Nor do I. Seriously, stop already. Because if it's proven that he did... or even by him following Martin that he was instigating it, your whole little defence that you - as a supremo DA are trying to put together - is gone. Ciao ciao.
Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic; background-color: rgb(242, 246, 248); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19px; "><dd style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 1.6em; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or</dd><dd style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-left: 1.6em; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.</dd></dl>Comment -
sorry spongecake that you received an infraction a few days ago... even kids in kindergarten learn to move past things
if you have trouble with that, I can highly recommend the Wiggles "yeah I'm a suck but I try not to suck" and the Muppets "oh man it's horrible being me but my mommy told me I'm still kinda cute"
cheersComment -
Are you? You call a staff member an oyster and you're asking me if I'm smoking drugs??? I know sharpie quite well and Sam and I have talked in several threads. They've never been as classless as you, nor would they ever, even if we disagreed on whatever. GL pal. Hope to see you here tomorrow if you make it that long.Comment -
First off I never insulted your post count simply stated that I do not feel like wasting my time sifting through your posting history.
Second lets not resort to name calling here it really makes people look foolish when they have to resort to name calling to win a debate, especially to call someone a shill when everyone knows you will jump up and shill for any SBR sponsor book without thinking.
Third you never had to state your misunderstanding of the law because it is painfully obvious that you do not understand.
Finally.........
-Hundreds of thousands of people own guns in florida this does not mean that they are not allowed to interact with others.
-GZ had a concealed carry permit.
-And are you kidding me did you really just ask me a question I already asked you????
Did GZ confront TM? or did TM confront GZ? YOU DON"T KNOW.........So WTF do you mean lets see if he did?
WTF are you charging him with? Murder?
Do you have proof that GZ assaulted TM?
Keep dodging the question Shari obviously your statement made no sense because you were suggesting that the burden of proof be on GZ to prove he is innocent because he was the "last man standing" when law has always been that the state must prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the state attorney's office, testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention that he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.
"It's better to let 100 criminals go free than to convict one innocent man." Benjamin FranklinComment -
Lots of anger in here today.
Even the mods getting into it with users.
To invoke calm and order into our little community, lets listen to a 10 second message on race in America.
I believe you guys could benefit from a message delivered by Clayton Bigsby.
Good day
Comment -
I honestly am not sure which statement of mine you didn't feel made sense. And your posts directed to me more than any have actually unnerved me a bit because you and I have been on the same wave length for 2+yrs. Even before I was posting here. But I've never said that George shouldn't have been carrying a gun. Being a neighbourhood watch guy in Sanford - something that I have posted about repeatedly on here - I'd feel compelled to do the same. I wouldn't bloody do it without one.First off I never insulted your post count simply stated that I do not feel like wasting my time sifting through your posting history.
Second lets not resort to name calling here it really makes people look foolish when they have to resort to name calling to win a debate, especially to call someone a shill when everyone knows you will jump up and shill for any SBR sponsor book without thinking.
Third you never had to state your misunderstanding of the law because it is painfully obvious that you do not understand.
Finally.........
-Hundreds of thousands of people own guns in florida this does not mean that they are not allowed to interact with others.
-GZ had a concealed carry permit.
-And are you kidding me did you really just ask me a question I already asked you????
Did GZ confront TM? or did TM confront GZ? YOU DON"T KNOW.........So WTF do you mean lets see if he did?
WTF are you charging him with? Murder?
Do you have proof that GZ assaulted TM?
Keep dodging the question Shari obviously your statement made no sense because you were suggesting that the burden of proof be on GZ to prove he is innocent because he was the "last man standing" when law has always been that the state must prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
"It's better to let 100 criminals go free than to convict one innocent man." Benjamin Franklin
However... I also saw the flip side at many an "organised party" in Sanny thanks to my ex's mum. Go buy Tupperware - and suddenly you're talking about "them" in your neighbourhood. Go buy a Clean Cotton Yankee Candle and it evolves into a full fledged "why can't we boot them"? And this is coming from people who DID NOT pay a lot for their property or to rent it. Not saying everyone doesn't/didn't but it was kind of ironic when someone is paying $900 rent for a 3 bed, 2bath, ragging on others. Regardless of race. That whole scene was really messed to me. I'm sure other posters who live there now can update it but it was gross back when I was there. Like Deliverance gross.
Again - it doesn't matter to me who was white/Hispanic/Black. It matters to me if it ends up fair. Fair I can handle. Truthfully, even unfair I can handle because sadly this is not my thing and I don't live in Orlando any more.
The whole thing just seems silly. If Trayvon were a girl, would this be an issue? If George were a girl, would it? Courts have no hope of getting this right.Comment -
Oh and to go back on your burden of proof thing above sharpie (I'm too tired to quote and delete)... that is my whole point!!! We don't have proof George assaulted Trayvon. We don't have proof Trayvon assaulted George.
How do you figure that out?
Because you haven't. So you can yip about my misunderstanding of the law but there it is: Who hurt who? One was shot dead. The other, well, who knows. Because he had blood pouring out of the back of his head? No offence but when my son face palmed the tv stand he had more blood than that. Blood does not = serious injury. Blood could = slip, fall, intentional smack, etc.
So let's ditch that.
Anyone with a child knows that and anyone who tries to dispute that is full of piss.Comment -
This picture means nothing.....
I just don't get how you can follow someone with a gun......bait them into a fight (directly or indirectly) and then blow their brains out when you start to lose the fight and claim self defense or stand your ground.....
If this is the case, I will just follow/stalk someone in Florida I don't like, then wait for them to eventually throw the first punch, and then boom, blow their brains out.......How is this different??
Still don't have the answer to this by anyone?
Not about race to me, and people that make it that way are ignorant as hell (on both sides.....black people, and the people that just don't want blacks to get their way even if they are right)Comment -
jerm coming through with the sharpest post in this thread.
so when the verdict is read we should keep it to one thread but the likeliness of that happening is about the same as a mouse becoming friends with a boaconstrictor.Comment -
First rule of gun class, if you shoot someone, make sure you kill them. I wonder what this case would be like if Travyon could speak, oh well.Comment -
This is the law my friend. If you think you can successfully intentionally stage a murder and leave no evidence that police can use to prove beyond doubt that you did it intentionally, than go for it.
So now you are suggesting that Angela Corey should have charged him with 1st degree murder? because it sounds very premeditated to me that he planned all of this down to the last detail, even going as far as to call the police before he went off to attack and kill TM.
Again not enough evidence in the affidavit to pursue charges which is exactly why they were not charged in the first place. only 3 pieces of evidence listed and nothing is new evidence that original DA did not have.
-TM's 16 yo GF's non visual testimony where she is on file as stating that GZ "MUST" have shoved TM because the phone went dead. Defense will eat this to pieces Non-visual witness, Relationship with victim, "Must have".
-Trayvons mother claims the screams in the background were TM because obviously she hears him scream like that all the time and would not just say that because she wants to believe it is her son.
-GZ followed and confronted TM. Lead investigator in the case testified under oath today that:
Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the state attorney's office, testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention that he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.
If this were the thesis of a high school essay it would be one thing but not good enough for a charging affidavit.
"It's better to let 100 criminals go free than to convict one innocent man." Benjamin FranklinComment
