Classic Ed Schultz Idiocy: 'So What' if Trayvon Martin Broke George Zimmerman's Nose?
Exhibit A on why liberals seldom go into police work -- Ed Schultz's chat with a like-minded caller to his radio show yesterday about the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
To the caller, it was "cut and dry" that Zimmerman murdered Martin during their confrontation in Sanford, Fla., last month. (audio)
CALLER: Hey, what is it about the right that just can't be wrong about something? This whole Trayvon Martin deal is just driving me nuts. It's cut and dry. The guy brought a gun to the fight. The kid was just walking home. You know, a scuffle ensues because this guy pursued him and he shoots the kid. That's, that's murder ...
SCHULTZ: Well, well, here, here, here's the thing. So what if Trayvon Martin hit him?
CALLER: That's exactly. So what if ...
SCHULTZ: So what if he, uh, broke his nose?
CALLER: I, I agree.
In fairness to Schultz, he does have a point. It is, after all, universally known that if a person has been punched, his nose broken, the assailant then slamming his head repeatedly on pavement, the assault will definitely end right there and go no further. Every person in this situation can be certain of that -- not to worry, the worst is over, just ride it out and wait for your assailant to tire himself out. Only a matter of time, no doubt about that, and your survival is all but ensured. The last thing a victim should do is allow the situation to escalate into violence.
Let me see if I have this straight -- Rush Limbaugh verbally assails a foot-stomping perpetual student who demands her Jesuit law school give her free contraception, and it's a crime against humanity. Schultz takes Zimmerman at his word, if only momentarily, and says he should have accepted getting physically assailed -- and that it was criminal of Zimmerman to defend himself.
Fortunately for Schultz, Zimmerman isn't a radical Muslim, thus sparing Schultz considerable confusion.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Harvesting A Diversion
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:43pm.
The MSM went out and found a potentially incendiary incident to divert attention away from the Obamacare trial at the Supreme Court. How do I know? It's what the Leftists do.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
ABC has a video
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:46pm.
reportedly of Zimmerman arriving at the police station and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of damage to his face or the back of his head. I'm sure they'll be offering this up as proof that an assault didn't take place, but it ignores the police report and the fact that Zimmerman has already been treated for these injuries. As such, even if he had a broken nose, there wouldn't necessarily be a great deal of visual evidence until sometime later when the swelling took over and possible black eyes emerged.
Watch for this to be the definitive proof for the left that Zimmerman did, in fact, hunt Martin down and executed him because he was black and wearing a hoodie.
Simmons weighs in
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:49pm.
Russell Simmons posted this video on his FB page. I know this because I have friends who are demanding Zimmerman's summary execution as much as Dainbramage and dave_worrell were on the infamous 591 post thread, and they have "shared" that video on their own FB pages. Interesting. I have an inkling of suspicion that Mr. Simmons didn't explain that little troublesome fact either.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:58pm.
I'm not surprised about Simmons, but ABC is committing journalistic malpractice by not reporting the police report statements if nothing else. Not that I'm surprised. We must keep this alive as long as possible to deflect from the healthcare disaster unfolding for the administration.
Question
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:32pm.
When exactly has ABC committed anything other than journalistic malpractice?
If race riots DO result from this, at least in south FL, they'll pat themselves on the back and toast each other at the next "journalism awards" gala...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
It's Central Florida
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:30pm.
And I live within spitting distance of Sanford. And all I'll say is that if race riots erupt and spill over into my neighborhood and endanger me or my family, the NFM (thank you Ann Coulter) will have a LOT more to report on...
Why let the FACTS get in the way
Submitted by bmac32 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:17pm.
You know Democrats, they NEVER let facts get in the way, they just twist them until they fit their story.
I'm not saying all Democrats, only those with a voice piece and a network to bach them.
For Special Ed:
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:46pm.
Oh, I don't know, Ed. Maybe because people don't ordinarily go around breaking people's noses? Maybe because where I'm from, that's called "assault"?
Ed, how hard do you work to be this stupid?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What if Trayvon was acting in
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:49pm.
What if Trayvon was acting in self-defense?
This case is a mess.
Two victims
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:52pm.
...and what if Zimmerman was?
Face it, bal. Mr. Martin was only the first victim that night. The second victim was a victim of multiple hits, opportunists, and populist shriekers and those pushing agendas. The second victim was trampled to death, right after Mr. Martin.
The second victim has been IDed as The Truth.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I would agree that there are
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:01pm.
I would agree that there are ridiculous opportunists trying to use this situation.
Yes there are...
Submitted by AFVet on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:27pm.
Seems that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Hussein Obama, Maxine Waters, Bobby 'Black Panther' Rush, Sheila Jackson Lee, Spike Lee, the new Black Panthers, and other leftists in the MSM are doing the best to use this situation to inflame racial tensions in this country. But none of this is new as they do this all of the time, they are all racists and prove it with their actions and words.
It's possible bal
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:00pm.
but logic doesn't point that way.
Logic doesn't point to
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:26pm.
Logic doesn't point to someone needing to shoot an unarmed teenager, either.
Yes, of course
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:29pm.
let's again come full circle to simplicity when we already know this thing is far from simple.
So he knew that his 6' 2'+
Submitted by Dan Diego on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:32pm.
So he knew that his 6' 2"+ attacker was a teen while his head was being pounded into the ground?
Dan
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:34pm.
I think it went like this:
How (bash)
old (bash)
are (bash)
you (bash)
because (bash)
I (bash)
have (bash)
a (bash)
gun (bash).
Kinda like
Submitted by Dan Diego on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:40pm.
"Why didn't the cops just shoot the gun out of his hand"
One of my favorites!!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:43pm.
One of my favorites!!!
Really NC Cop?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:25pm.
You say that as if you've never done it. Its soooooo simple. Jeez! What are they teaching you down there? ;-)
Well, it looks simple on "The
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:27pm.
Well, it looks simple on "The A Team"!!!!!!
The A Team?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:38pm.
No sir, you must watch Equilibrium. Its all about Gun Kata.
It's logical
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:30pm.
if that teenager is on top of you bashing your head repeatedly into the sidewalk.
Why do you hate hispanics?
Balboa*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:30pm.
I am 65 yrs old and have been "accosted" several times at the local Wal-Mart. The simple fact is that a 15 yr old could injury me severely even though he would be "unarmed". If cornered Balboa, how do you expect me to protect myself?
That,bal, is definitely an example of a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:34pm.
blinding glimpse of the obvious.
It is possible, likely even probable, that there is a tad more involved with the Zimmerman/Trayvon situation than your bare bones statement would indicate.
MD
And? How do you know?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:35pm.
A lot of people are shrieking about how Mr. Martin was unarmed.
If someone kicks down the door to my pad, wanting to help himself to my possessions, I'm not going to check and see if he's armed before blowing the perp away. And even if he WAS unarmed in this scenario, that's immaterial under TX law.
Lest you think I am changing the subject, it falls under a larger question: tell me, how do YOU know if someone is armed or not? If you were to visit me here in TX, you'd never know if I were packing heat or not. I carry concealed, and legally so, but you won't know if I am packing heat or not. Neither does anyone else. And if you DO somehow know I am armed, there is a 99% chance you are a cop.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I know that there's a lot
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:55pm.
I know that there's a lot going on here that I don't know about. It is of course possible that a person might need to use a gun to defend themselves against an unarmed assailant. For all I know Zimmermans reaction was appropriate, but maybe he reacted poorly.
I'd just like to see the truth come out outside of the TV idiot opinions.
Simple: you don't know
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:12pm.
It is of course possible that a person might need to use a gun to defend themselves against an unarmed assailant. It's more than possible because the simple fact of the matter is that you don't know who is armed and who is not.
Again, there is no way in hell average people on the street know if I am armed or not. Conversely, there is no way I know if THEY are armed or not.
Indeed, one of the beauties of TX giving out CHLs to people who qualify is that simple premise: "you don't know". If you don't know who is armed and who is not - and you don't, and I don't and very few people on the street know who is packing heat or not, it is one hell of a deterrent.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yeah, but that seems an odd
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:16pm.
Yeah, but that seems an odd way to go through day-to-day life, wondering who's packing heat.
Textbook case of missing the point.
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:40pm.
Apparently you are dedicated to missing the point. In fact I think you want to miss the point and are going out of your way to do so.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The only people that will
Submitted by Sude23 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 1:26pm.
The only people that will worry day to day if someone is "packing heat" is the person wanting to commit a crime. If you are a normal person chances are you are not to concerned with who is "packing heat".
Now that the Circus (media,
Submitted by Dan Diego on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:13pm.
Now that the Circus (media, politicians and race-baiters) has come to town we'll probably never know all the details.
I'm more apt to believe the responding officers / prosecutors over the clowns.
believe the responding officers
Submitted by CarlosS on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 11:22am.
I disagree..., this is clearly a case of a grand conspiracy between the 911 operator, police, emergency first aid responders, "eye witness" and the doctors who forged the "broken nose" treatment..., (sarc off)
I think we will get all the
Submitted by Sude23 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 1:36pm.
I think we will get all the fact it's just not going to be the facts they want to hear. Perhaps an excuse to cause a race riot similar to the Rodney King incident... But I am hoping I am wrong about that...
And speaking of weapons, Uns, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:08pm.
in twenty years patrol time as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff, I spent numerous occasions searching for a firearm, noted by witnesses at a crime scene, that wasn't found on the perp when caught. It had been hastily tossed (discarded) by the fleeing criminal, so as to prevent additional jail time being assessed for either (a) being a felon in possession of a firearm, or (b) use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.
The "victim" was unarmed. He "did not have" a weapon.
You can't prove a negative, but that doesn't stop the bleeding hearts from claiming that poor Trayvon was unarmed.
The fact that no weapon was found on his body means he was unarmed when shot; but that has no bearing on why he was shot.
Neither does it prove he did not have a weapon in his possession before eluding Zimmerman.
MD
Let's also not forget that
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:23pm.
Let's also not forget that Zimmerman is claiming that Martin grabbed his gun. I highly doubt that he was grabbing it so he could show it to his friends. If indeed Martin grabbed the gun or tried to wrestle it away from Zimmerman, it was a deadly force scenario.
Just a reminder
Submitted by LoosMoose on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 1:35am.
In referencing TEXAS law, a reminder that the first person fataly shot after the institution of the Concealed Carry Permit in TEXAS, was in Dallas where a man was assaulted by a "road rage" fanatic that left his car at a red light and went to the car in front of him and began punching the driver through the open window. The man in the car was properly licensed and defended himself with lethal force and was exonerated. Case Closed.
That was back in 1995 IIRC
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 6:33am.
Yep. And in that case how was the driver to know that the assailant did not have a weapon?
The assailant was killed as a result of his actions. Hope it was worth it...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You would have done two things ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:56pm.
in that situation and I am not sure in exactly which order you would have done them ...
1.) sh*t your knickers
2.) croaked.
Because that gang banger would have put you 6 feet under. You should be eternally grateful George Zimmerman arranged for him to meet Jesus before he could harm anyone else.
Gang banger? Puts people
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:35pm.
Gang banger? Puts people "six feet under"? My goodness, those are weighty accusations!
And nevermind the obvious racial implications of "gang banger" - I'm sure you wouldn't have used that term for a non-black person, but then, Zimmerman probably wouldn't have followed him in that case either.
Exactly what part of Martin's non-existent criminal record makes you think he's a gang-affiliated criminal?
And if Trayvon Martin had
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:43pm.
And if Trayvon Martin had been white, we would have never heard of this story.
That's true, because he
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:04pm.
That's true, because he wouldn't be dead. It's a hell of a catch-22. And to take offense at the idea that there could be SOME aspect of racism in this incident and then call a 17 y/o kid with no arrests a "gang banger" is just too ironic.
But no, seriously, I know what you mean. And I simply disagree. I heard about this well before Sharpton et al. started their (rather predictable) diatribes.
I also want to find out what
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:07pm.
I also want to find out what happened, but I'm sick of people jumping to conclusions before we know all the facts. The totality of the circumstances will come out in the grand jury and if there is enough evidence he will be charged and go to trial. I have no problem with that.
However, there has been so much race baiting and speculation in regards to this case. If he his guilty of a crime, then he should be punished, I don't think anybody is arguing against that.
Remember the Duke Lacrosse team fiasco? Let's just be patient and let all the facts come out, that's all I'm saying.
Agreed, and maybe we should
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:18pm.
Agreed, and maybe we should just leave it there. You've always been a pleasant guy to talk to, and I appreciate it.
It's just that when people call a dead kid with no record a "gang banger" it's hard not to get a little testy.
Ok, fair enough. I agree
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:22pm.
Ok, fair enough. I agree with your mischaracterization of him as a "gang banger". I had not heard a single shred of evidence suggesting that.
I am not defending Zimmerman. I BELIEVE he will be charged with a crime in the end. I just want people to keep an open mind about this for now.
Well, as I'm sure you know NC
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:17pm.
there are gang bangers, and then there are neighborhood kids who wish to be gang bangers.
Indeed, there are.
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 8:47pm.
Actually, there are several different levels of involvement.
I can tell you from my experiences that the kids that want to prove something to gang members are some of the most dangerous.j
Again, I have no idea if Martin had any such involvement.
Gee whiz, Jason..
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:43pm.
Do we have to wait four or five months for the cavalry to arrive? It's tough enough at this place even when you're here!
;-)
Jer
Long time no see...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:49pm.
And I think you'll agree with this assessment:
Two people died that night.
One was Mr. Martin.
The second, shortly thereafter, died of being trampled to death and from just general severe beatings. He was recently IDed as The Truth.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
This kid was no angel ...
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 8:40pm.
and he was no kid either.
Have you ever been struck in the face hard enough to break your nose by someone who's about 6' 3" tall? I bet such an event would terrify you. Then that same person tackles you and starts to beat your head in to ground. If you weren't frightened before you will be then.
This Martin kid had been suspended form school more than once. The school won't say why but drugs are the likely reason.
He dressed the gang part. His "social media" postings are those of a disrespectful young man.
If he did not want to be taken for a gang banger then why was he acting like one?
I think you would have been crapping your knickers with Balboa if this young punk came after you.
But
Submitted by Dan Diego on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 8:46pm.
he was eating Skittles, how could he hurt someone?
He can close his ...
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 04/03/2012 - 11:08pm.
fist over the skittles and jam them down your throat.
JasonC
Submitted by CherDash on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 12:35am.
On the tape, you can hear the dispatcher or officer asking GZ if the person was Black, White, or Hispanic. He didn't know. He had to get a better look before he could answer the question. He was *not* following TM because he was black, so get over that. All he saw at first was someone 6' 3" or so walking around (rather slowly, not what one normally does when caught in the rain) in the rain. They had had 8 burglaries in 15 months in that neighborhood.
Being unarmed is not note worthy.
Submitted by AFVet on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:30pm.
One does not need to be armed to assault another or kill another. Just because Martin was not carrying a weapon when he approached, attacked, and assaulted Zimmerman does not mean he could not have killed Zimmerman. If Martin had not approached, attacked, and assaulted Zimmerman he would be alive today. But I guess facts to not matter to left-wingers.
People die in "fist fights," Bal
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 2:06pm.
Bal, "unarmed teenagers" have killed people with a little more than a single punch to the head. Just google "man dies after being punched," and you'll understand that a punch can be as deadly as a bullet. That's why we train our military in hand to hand combat, because a bare hand can be a very dangerous weapon.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Liberals and GUNS
Submitted by LionKing on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:21pm.
Zimmerman is a registered Democrat ... what the heck was he doing with a gun?
I thought liberals hated guns?
Where are the Hispanic "Al Sharptons" and why aren't they defending Zimmerman?
Why is Zimmerman referred to as a "WHITE" Hispanic?
Why is the media insisting on making the a Black-and-White hate issue?
Liberals and GUNS
Submitted by LoosMoose on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 1:37am.
>> I thought liberals hated guns?
NO... liberals only hate *YOUR* guns
I guess it's because he's part White Devil.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:59am.
Never know when that White Devil is going to come out, if it's in there.
Seriously, this is so stupid. Going on about 20 years now, I understood that Hispanics were a minority, and that as a minority, we white people had no concern for them--that's why border laws and voter ID laws are "racist".
Now all of a sudden we're defending Zimmerman out of solidarity with the portion of him that is white??!! That's the great thing about the liberal narrative--it's so flexible!
Yes we know maybe he was but
Submitted by Sude23 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:19pm.
Yes we know maybe he was but the point of the matter is only one side of the story is being published and heard. Any attempt to get the Zimmerman side of things and it gets struck down and we are all racist. We need to let our justice system get to work here not take it in our own hands, if we do that then we do not deserve the freedoms we have. I would like to see these people who are promoting violence against anyone on this case be brought to justice as well, all it does is create hate where it does not belong. I suppose I am rambling at this point...
So What
Submitted by AR72 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:50pm.
Does that mean I could punch Ed Schultz in the face and all he can do do is say, "So what!" I like this game!
"Exhibit A on why liberals
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:54pm.
"Exhibit A on why liberals seldom go into police work"
Amen to that. Those that do rarely last long.......or they get promoted to chief. ;)
On police chiefs
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 9:55pm.
Now is that because the police chief is a "natural" lib, or because the police chief works at the pleasure of libs, or because the police chief has political ambitions of his/her own?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns, in answer to your questions, yes, yes, and
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:55am.
in most cases, definitely yes.
It varies from chief to
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:45pm.
It varies from chief to chief. In all fairness our last chief just retired after coming to us from Texas. I think it's safe to say that he was no liberal.
However, most that are do so for political reasons, or so it seems.
Having spent plenty of time in police stations as a reporter ...
Submitted by Jack Coleman on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:37pm.
... I knew that would ring true for cops who read NewsBusters
Good news
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:37pm.
lefties are exhibiting a new found measure of civility now that Spike Lee apologized for retweeting the wrong address. Now they've got a new twitter feed up for Zimmerman. The media will probably be all over this one.
Yep.
bk
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:45pm.
And gee ya gotta love the petitions to have Zimmerman arrested. That's how the justice system works, maybe if we get enough signatures we can have him executed without a trial too.
Well Rad
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:48pm.
there is some evidence that Zimmerman was responsible for 300 years of black oppression in this country. Can you blame them?
OT: For dog lovers. Maybe grab a tissue in advance.
Yes Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 10:58pm.
And how is the media going to discuss that "target" on Zimmermans face?
That's easy, Caj.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:59am.
It's Sarah Palin's fault, of course.
I think you mean Bush's
Submitted by Sude23 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:21pm.
I think you mean Bush's fault.
BK
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:49am.
OMG that dog looks like one of mine. How about grab a box of tissues in advance....
"Unarmed"
Submitted by Merk3030 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:23pm.
What people do not realize is that incredible damage can be done by someone without a "weapon." I use quotes because an unarmed attackers weapon is his fists, legs, etc. If Martin was indeed bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete, if you ask me, that is assault with intent to mame/kill. I for one would not want to let my head be bashed in and I would use any means possible to thwart the attack.
This very well could have been avoided, but the reality is that it happened and none of us will ever know what truely happened. A young man is dead, and a man who very well may have used deadly force to legally defend himself is now in hiding with his family to avoid a terrorist mob that the media and poverty pimps like sharlaton and jacksin all too eagerly incited. If Zimmerman's actions were not justifiable, the courts will be able to come to this conclusion and he will be brought to trial accordingly. If he and his family are killed or hurt, who is liable for that?
For me, from the beginning, this was always about the 2nd amendment, carry, and stand your ground laws and the current administration laying the groundwork for trying to dismantle more of our common sense civil liberties and rights to protect ourselves, family, and neighbors.
Lastly, I feel that BHO's comments regarding this event were very unpresidential and really show that he is nothing more than a community aggitator. A real president would call off the media and let the local LE concern handle the investigation. (I had also heard the police chief had already called on the state and federal authorities before the media blitz even called attention to the case. Not sure if that is true, just something I heard)
Merk3030
Please excuse my grammar and spelling. I am product of public school, and too lazy to proof read at this time.
You misspelled
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 12:26am.
"truely" and "aggitator". Not bad.
:-)
Jer
And---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 1:43am.
maim.
And charlatan and Jackson unless they were both a play on the regular spelling.
A good post, though; I only pointed out the misspells becaws Jer mist 'em.
And he was colege educaited, two.
A barrier, I believe he was. :o)
MD
md...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 2:03am.
charlatan and Jackson: N/A
maim/mame: missed it
dang it...
Jer
Goof morning Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 2:39am.
It seams sum daze ya cain't win 'em awl .
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Sharlaton and Jacksin
Submitted by IdahoJim on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 2:58pm.
Sharpton and Jackson. That's not so hard to figure out, is it? I did and I'm from Idaho for Pete's sake.
That's what we used to call a "lampoon".
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
IdahoJim...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:02pm.
I had figured that out...thus, the reason I didn't mention it in my first post and put "N/A" in my second. I didn't realize that would be so hard to figure out.
Jer
Thanks Jer
Submitted by Merk3030 on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 11:23pm.
That is my subtle attempt at humor...lol.
Ed is a wife beater so he is
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:37pm.
Ed is a wife beater so he is an expert on assault.
Great post. Has anyone
Submitted by NCfairandbalanced on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:24am.
Great post. Has anyone noticed the picture controversy? 2 pictures...one is a good looking kid, and the other looks like a thug. I don't blame his parents for not wanting the thug looking picture out, and I will admit not just the good looking pic is trying to sway opinion, but so is the thug looking one too.
So what's the tie-breaker? The most RECENT pic, of course.
Twitter
Submitted by CJohnson on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 11:52am.
After reading Martins twitters, does his girlfriends' father have anything to say about statutory rape, defamation or hate speech toward women?
Turn it around, ed?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 2:12pm.
"So what if he, uh, broke his nose?"
Turn it around, Ed. Ask yourself: "So what if Trayvon took a bullet?"
By the way, Ed, I like how you think this case is "cut and dried." Since when did you become a Judge, a Jury, and a Executioner? Just when DID you become a Media Vigilantist?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hello all. I certainly
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 2:42pm.
Hello all.
I certainly disagree with Schultz. It does matter if Martin broke Zimmerman's nose, if only because it gives more insight into what exactly happened that night and the extent to which - in the end - Zimmerman was or was not justified in shooting.
As for the racial issue, I don't see any indication that Zimmerman was a raging racist who set out to kill a black kid. That reaction does seem hysterical. However, it is hard not to think that Martin's race and alleged dress/demeanor played a role in the way that Zimmerman perceived him as a threat, even if it was not consciously racIST.
But a whole lot has been said about Zimmerman's rights under "Stand your ground" laws. Now, is it at all in dispute that Zimmerman, who is not a cop and holds no institutional authority beyond "Block Captain," CHOSE to pursue Martin on basically no pretense, in spite of an emergency dispatcher's telling him in no uncertain terms NOT to? All of the evidence, phone records, testimony, etc. point to this being accurate, right?
So what about Martin's "Stand your ground" rights? A man 10 years his senior was following him around in a car. And are we to believe that Martin somehow DRAGGED or otherwise forced Zimmerman from the vehicle? No. Zimmerman chose to get out to further accost Martin. Was Martin supposed to stand down upon learning that Zimmerman held the lofty title of Block Captain? I'm not saying that Martin didn't throw some punches - and I can't help hoping he got a few good ones in - but my point, and I think perhaps Schultz's as well, is that there is no way that Zimmerman had any right to start this altercation in the way he did.
I ask these things because I haven't really seen this particular issue addressed. I have no wish to be throwing around "talking points." But I also make a point of not watching any of the 24-hour news channels (very bad for the blood pressure), so to what extent this exact issue has been raised is unknown to me.
Just how do you know that?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:15pm.
"No. Zimmerman chose to get out to further accost Martin. "
Just how do you know that? No where in the released tapes is there evidence of Zimmerman "accosting" anyone at all. All the evidence produced to date indicates that Zimmerman was following the guy, which is not illegal. You do have a "right" to follow people around, especially in your own neighborhood. Some States even allow you to follow people around while carrying a concealed weapon, for they believe that is a "right."
"in spite of an emergency dispatcher's telling him in no uncertain terms NOT to?"
As for the 911 dispatcher telling someone not to follow someone else, who gave them the authority to tell people what they can or can not do? They are NOT a member of the police department, or any other civil authority for that matter, and they have absolutely NO authority over anyone! "Emergency dispatchers" have one function: to dispatch emergency personnel to where they are needed when they are needed, and that's IT! They are NOT civilian control personnel. They are NOT the police. Unless it's instructions in, say, how to stop someone from bleeding to death, or to get out of the house if you smell smoke, they shouldn't be telling the callers to do anything!
Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch participant. It was his duty, as a part of that program, to, you know, follow non-residents around. That's what the program is designed for. You may as well claim that a volunteer fireman has "no right" to run into a burning building.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I erred in referring to the
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:19pm.
I erred in referring to the dispatcher as an emergency dispatcher. Zimmerman called the "non-emergency" police line. So yes, it was a member of the police force, or at least somebody on their behalf, who instructed him not to.
So while I suppose one has to give him credit for not thinking a kid in a hoodie who was "just walking around looking about" and "looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something" exactly constituted an emergency, let's just reflect for a moment on Zimmerman's word choices. This is his pretext for calling the police and the following around a kid who was a guest a resident in this gated community? The best explanation for why this kid merits suspicion is that he was "just walking about" and "looks like he is up to no good"? Was he Brando in The Wild One, just somehow communicating his up-to-no-goodness? Give me a break.
If you want to believe that Martin dragged Zimmerman through the car window, rather than that Zimmerman chose to get out because he somehow believed it was necessary, that the neighborhood would crumble without his selfless vigilantism, feel free. I think that's ludicrous. The bottom line is that Martin was being stalked by a much older man. I think we all wish he'd taken his girlfriend's advice to run. If his instinct ran toward fight rather than flight, it's unfortunate, but it's only because Zimmerman put him in that position.
So I ask again: What about Martin's right to Stand His Ground?
"So I ask again: What about
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:48pm.
"So I ask again: What about Martin's right to Stand His Ground?"
I didn't realize that Martin had been assaulted. Where did you get this information?
He was being stalked, on the
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 3:58pm.
He was being stalked, on the flimsiest of pretenses, by a man 10 years his senior, in a car, with a gun, and with ZERO institutional authority beyond the Neighborhood Watch Captain badge he no doubt had made up at Kinko's. I'm not saying Martin didn't throw the first punch; but what do you think Zimmerman continued pursuing him and got out of the car for? To ask for a handful of Skittles?
What would you want your 17-year-old to do if a complete stranger was following him around in a neighborhood where he was an invited guest? Again, running would be ideal. But what would you have preferred, that he just bow down to Zimmerman's non-existent authority?
Tell me Jason, what law
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:04pm.
Tell me Jason, what law prevents anyone from going up to someone and start talking to him?
First of all, neither of us
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:15pm.
First of all, neither of us KNOWS that that's all that happened. That's a best-case scenario for Zimmerman's claims.
Second, what law prevents someone from walking down a sidewalk in a hoodie? There must be one, since by Zimmerman's own statements to the dispatcher, we know that his accompanying behaviors were "just walking around and looking about" and the unbelievably vague "looking like he is up to no good."
Sorry, I do not for a moment buy the idea that Zimmerman got out of his car, walked up to Martin, introduced himself as a representative of the Neighborhood Association or whatever, and politely inquired as to who he was visiting or what he was doing, and that Martin then started whaling on him. There is no evidence to suggest that.
"First of all, neither of us
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:18pm.
"First of all, neither of us KNOWS that that's all that happened. That's a best-case scenario for Zimmerman's claims."
Agreed.
"Second, what law prevents someone from walking down a sidewalk in a hoodie?"
Ah, answering my question with a question, huh? Last time I checked Zimmwerman wasn't trying to arrest him. I take it by your response you concede that there is no law that prevents him from going up to him and asking him questions. Just as much that Martin has the right to walk away.
"Sorry, I do not for a moment buy the idea that Zimmerman got out of his car, walked up to Martin, introduced himself as a representative of the Neighborhood Association or whatever, and politely inquired as to who he was visiting or what he was doing, and that Martin then started whaling on him. There is no evidence to suggest that."
Interesting. Your first sentence states that neither of us knows what happens. Now you, without a doubt, rule out what might have happened. Par for course.
Yes, I agree there's no law
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:25pm.
Yes, I agree there's no law that prevents a person from going up and talking to another. When that conversation is preceded by vehicular stalking, I think the stalkee has the right to feel threatened.
My last statement is simply based on looking logically at the facts. I don't know for sure that aliens didn't land on top of the Sears Tower, just this minute, but it's likelihood is seriously slim. Likewise, I don't buy that a kid with no prior record of assault, who was on his way back to watch the second half of a basketball game with friends and family, just beat up a stranger for kicks. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on the person who makes that claim, not the person who finds it dubious.
no jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:29pm.
A law abiding citizen would have nothing to be concerned about. Let's say Zimmerman calls out to Martin,who are you and what are you doing here? Normally the person with good sense would have said they were just passing through, on the way to the store. Make no threatening moves and move away. Instead, Martin goes after Zimmerman. Why was that?
I live in a rural area,certainly not a gated community, but we do have a "neighborhood watch". The reason is because we have a high rate of crime. My house has been robbed twice, once, my husband and I drove up as the thief was running off the property to his vehicle. I can assure you, had I had time to get to my house, grab my gun, I would have fired at him. I would not have tried to kill him, but a .22 in the a** is a lesson and a warning to other thieves.
We had thieves in work vans that had signs for some air conditioning repair company. They were stopped by the neighborhood watch man and asked questions about their "customer". They took off and almost ran into a deputy patrolling the area. When they were stopped, the van was filled with stolen goods.
We no longer live in a society where we can never trust anyone. How sad is that?
I have posted several times that Baton Rouge, a city of 228,000 has had 51 young blacks murdered. Some as young as 2 yrs old caught in crossfire of a gangfight. ALL the victims were killed by young blacks. By focusing on the shooters "race" only when they are "white", we leave out the most important issues. One, why are young blacks today the most violent and use deadly force? Why are young blacks killing each other? When a 15 yr old boy shot and killed a 2 yr old boy and his 17 yr old mother, why was there not an outrage by Rev Al ? You would think the Rev was concerned for "his people".
Whites are guilty of crime as well. Usually violent crime is 80% incidents involving drugs. Violence has become an acceptable way of "taking care of business". Like the two young blacks who threw gasoline on a boy and set him afire. When and how did our children learn to use such violent methods to express dislike or revenge?
There are serious issues about our society that needs solutions. The last few years, people like Obama, Sharpton and Jackson, have created more racial divide than we have had in 60 yrs. If they are truely concerned about racism, address it not create a crisis, not take advantage of a crisis for a hidden agenda.
Hi Cajun, Thanks for the
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:35pm.
Hi Cajun,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I respectfully disagree with the race issue comments at the end of your post and especially take issue with including Obama in the same universe of race-manipulation as Jackson and Sharpton, but this is a huge topic, so let's agree to disagree.
I agree that people should be able to protect their homes, family, property, selves. I just think there's also so much potential for tragedies like this to occur, and there's really no ideal solution. Even if we were able to resolve the question of Homeowners Should Use Deadly Force to Protect Themselves vs. No They Shouldn't! (which we never will), there will still be some really grim outcomes. I wouldn't begrudge you the ass-shot you allude to, but - and I hope I'm not insulting your marksmanship - what if you missed by a few inches and got him in the spine? Instead of being the guy who shot a burglar in the ass (and if i lived in the area I would so buy you a beer for that one) you're the guy who killed a guy who was running away.
The Martin incident just underscores how much this whole issue sucks.
~Cajun is un femme, my dear
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:40pm.
And I'm sure she'd get a hole in one.
and a darn good shot*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:55pm.
Perhaps I should have been more detailed. As the burglar was in my back yard, dropped the power tools that he was trying to steal, he yells at my husband to call off our dogs or he was gonna start shooting. I did not know if he was carrying or if he had a gun in his car. Knowing my husband may be in trouble and at risk, I ran into the house, got my gun and cell phone. By the time I came outside with MY gun, he was gone. BTW: though we gave the cops a description, accurate description of the car AND the license plate, the cops have never found the guy even though my husband has seen the guy driving around town twice. Both times called the cops. Still no arrest.
How was I to know that he did or did not have a gun? Should I have waited til he shot my husband before reaching for my gun? And all this took place within minutes on fast forward.
Due to my personal and professional experiences, I can tell you many stories where I had to make instant decisions to protect my safety or that of a child. Flight or fight is not a cliche'. Two normal human responses to percieved danger. How do you think you would respond Jason?
Cajun I did not know that tu
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:05pm.
Cajun I did not know that tu es une femme, as WB just informed me. Apologies for the assumption.
Also, WB, "hole in one"? Ewww....
I fully agree that fight or flight is not a cliche or a joke. But to bring us back to the topic at hand, I don't feel comfortable so quickly abandoning the notion that Martin may have been exercising his fight or flight reaction. Or not. I certainly don't know.
At any rate, I hope things have settled down in your neck of the woods. I recently moved to a community waaay out of my east coast comfort zone. Still adjusting to the different-worldness of it...no gun for me yet though, even though it seems to be the norm here.
~Oh, come now!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:07pm.
That quip was wittily apropos, if not a pleasant image.
a propos, yes. But also a
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:16pm.
a propos, yes. But also a bit racy for my delicate sensibilities.
I am of course joking.
~Oh, what a perfect set-up for this...
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:19pm.
Read it, love.
Perfect. Tim Tebow = Class
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:30pm.
Perfect.
Tim Tebow = Class Act/Imperfect QB
Rex Ryan = Gross
It barely even seems like satire.
~"A nice kid who gasps a lot..."
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:49pm.
Freakin' hilarious.
Louisiana girls
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:09pm.
ROCK! ;)
Here ya go NOLAgf*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:23pm.
http://www.cafepress.com/+all_cajun_womens_tshirt,232915677
C2
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 10:01pm.
Loooove it!
Gotcha, Bru!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:24pm.
C'est "une" femme.
So there. That's for the Crucifixion typo!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Crap
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:48pm.
I'm never gonna live this down.
Don't feel bad, WB, I had to
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:56pm.
Don't feel bad, WB, I had to go back and fix a misconjugation in my own post to Cajun. Fortunately, I got to it before anyone else noticed. So...not sure why I'm admitting this.
~It makes you more human
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:08pm.
;)
I saw it,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:09pm.
I think?
Ms Brunette*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:57pm.
The correct spelling is "merde"....And a little "honte" thrown in...LOL
~Duly noted
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:05pm.
for future reference. :-D
Seems
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:13pm.
what if you missed by a few inches and got him in the spine?
That was the risk he was willing to take
True Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:14pm.
There are risks in the profession of "crime". For instance, could be prison for burglary or the death penalty.
You do realize that Cajun's
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 10:19pm.
You do realize that Cajun's life would basically have been turned upside down if that had happened right? Defense of property or not, shooting someone fatally or severely while they're running away is not generally legal. Maybe LA is different in this regard.
Jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 11:12pm.
I will tell you the same thing I told the Deputy. When he saw that I had a gun, he says that since I was threatened, I would have been clear with a shooting. However, he says, its very traumatic and disturbing to shoot someone. I told him that was obvious but I would still have my husband and I have insurance that covers psychiatric therapy.
Good enough, then.
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 9:06am.
Good enough, then.
~Jason
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:24pm.
Martin clearly had no idea Zimmerman was armed, or he probably would have thought twice about jumping him and proceeding to beat the living daylights out of him.
I initially gave Martin the benefit of the doubt and leaned toward the idea that Zimmerman was an overzealous jerk who provoked an unnecessary confrontation. As more and more details came out I concluded that the available evidence no longer pointed to that conclusion.
On your point above about Zimmerman continuing to pursue Martin after the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that", well, he didn't. Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin at that point and responded to the dispatcher's suggestion with "OK".
OK is affirmative. He stopped pursuing him, which was only natural since he'd lost sight of him anyway. In the transcript you'll see that Zimmerman stopped in the middle of giving the dispatcher his home address because, as he said, "I don't want to give it all out; I don't know where this kid is". He obviously did not continue to pursue and then catch Martin.
One more thing, just in case you're not aware. Zimmerman currently weighs about 170, not 240 as was originally reported. While I originally wondered how the hell a skinny kid could possibly be a match for such a hefty guy, it turns out Zimmerman didn't outweigh Martin by much, and was obviously at a considerable height and reach disadvantage. It isn't out of the realm of plausibility that he could have been taking a beating.
I'd heard about the weight
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:32pm.
I'd heard about the weight thing as well.
But let's be honest here, saying "OK" and actually doing the thing you've affirmed you'll do are two different things, especially when your adrenaline is jacked. So Zimmerman stopped pursuit, Martin was well out of his sight, and then...Martin somehow leaped out of a nearby shrub and beat the crap out of Z?
Now, I fully accept that I wasn't there and don't know the layout of the neighborhood. But all of these claims are still dubious, and I don't see why I should take ANYthing Z says as having any veracity whatsoever. Martin doesn't have the chance to testify his version, so it seems only fair to disregard Z's version, especially when it simply doesn't make sense, and when the incident was led up to by Z's zealotry.
OK, that last post was
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 5:22pm.
OK, that last post was ill-thought-out. Let me clarify.
I certainly believe in Z's right to due process and to do his best to exonerate himself. And maybe he'll surprise me and do just that. I was trying to point out a fundamental problem with the Stand Your Ground law. Of course, on its surface, it's great. No one should be required to back down from a deadly situation if they feel in the moment that it makes more sense to fight back. But at the same time, it puts the burden of proof on investigators to prove the killing or maiming was justified simply because the survivor says it was.
WB, it rather reminds me of your old pro-life tagline. In order to plead not guilty based on Stand Your Ground, one must survive the altercation. Ah, the irony.
~Stand Your Ground is irrelevant to this case
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 5:48pm.
According to both Zimmerman and an eyewitness, Zimmerman was getting the crap beat out of him. When someone is pounding your head into the pavement you have the right to resist with all the force at your disposal, no matter what state you live in.
If you listen to the audio you can tell by Zimmerman's breathing that he was no longer running. Besides, he'd obviously lost sight of Martin so what was there to pursue? You can't chase something you can't see.
Sorry, but what you're
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 7:49pm.
Sorry, but what you're presenting as "fact" - Martin beating the crap out of Zimmerman - is suspect given that the testimony is coming from Zimmerman and his neighbor.
It still doesn't settle the question of who initiated the physical altercation. And while I realize it's very middle school of me to harp on the question of "who started it," I think it matters. If we didn't know for a fact that Zimmerman had been stalking this kid on no probable cause whatsoever, and that he reportedly regarded black males as a threat to neighborhood security to begin with, it might all seem less fishy.
And the biggest reason that "who started it" matters is that many of the people on this forum are just fine with Zimmerman killing Martin if it was in self-defense. Even if the eyewitness report is correct, how do we not know that Martin felt he was acting in self defense? Is one only allowed to defend oneself in this way with the cold efficiency of a firearm?
~Think about it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:05pm.
The transcript shows that Z lost sight of M and had no idea where he was. Z assented when the dispatcher said not to follow. When the dispatcher asked Z the address of his location, he said it was a cut through so he didn't know.
If Z didn't know the address of where he was, do you think he personally knew the eyewitness who stated that Z was the one screaming for help while being beaten? There's no reason to believe that the witness is lying, or that they knew each other.
Z was treated for a broken nose and the gash on the back of his head required 8 stitches, according to the latest info. Did Martin have any injuries other than the gunshot wound? If not, he was clearly the aggressor.
If a much taller guy with a longer reach steps out of the shadows, knocks you down, sits on your chest and proceeds to beat your face, breaking your nose and causing other head injuries while you scream for help that doesn't come, are you going to try to shoot him in the leg because just being bludgeoned in the face doesn't deserve death, and then risk him struggling for the gun and shooting you with it, or are you going to pull your weapon and just shoot?
It simply staggers me that people are acting like Z made a calculated decision to over-react to a beating, because a situation like that clearly precludes cold-blooded reasoning.
Bru, Not in the Aloha State.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:37pm.
It's a big crime here to have a weapon, on your person, off your property...
Zero concealed carry permits issued..
If you have 2 properties, and want to bring your gun to the other property then you must unload your weapon, place it in your trunk, in a locked case (hard to do with a van) ammo to be placed in another location to transport it. This is important you must transport it directly to the second property (or gun range).
If you have a home invasion the person must be in your bedroom, facing you, even then you will have all your wealth erased by the state investigating the crime.
Now in Colorado, if someone has their hand through a broken window reaching for the lock on the door, blast away, so what if their body is mostly outside, case closed. Lots of concealed carry permits issued in Colorado.
A lot of argument here has to do with differing state laws.
Florida and Hawaii both have palm trees, gun laws are vastly different.
You Didn't Build That.
Palm Trees
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:41pm.
Dense!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~The example I gave..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:44pm.
..was having your head pounded into the pavement. Are you saying that in Hawai'i you can't shoot in self-defense in the middle of being physically assaulted?
I am so not ever moving there.
Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:32pm.
Does it not seem logical to you that someone whose bloody "head had been pounded into the pavement" should a.) show up at police HQ with at least a bandaid on the wound, or b.) request cranial X-rays for a possible skull fracture?
It is possible, of course, that there was a bandage of sorts [Zimmerman having received some minimal medical attention at the scene], but, if so, it's not evident from the police surveillance video [which depicts someone in remarkably good shape for having just suffered a severe beating]. And if he failed to request X-rays--or any additional treatment--that doesn't say much for his good judgment.
One other note: There have been assertions that Zimmerman was attacked from behind and sucker-punched [and your use of the words "stepping out of the shadows" and "jumped" connotes such an assault by Martin as well], but that was not the account given by Zimmerman to his friend as related by the latter who indicated Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle, heard Martin say something like 'why are you following me', at which point Zimmerman turned around and more words were spoken and then--according to what Zimmerman reportedly told his friend--Martin punched him.
Jer
~Jer, are you disputing the existence of stitches?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:47pm.
Look, Martin obviously stepped out of the shadows because it was, um, dark. Zimmerman didn't know where he was, was leaving, and Martin initiated contact.
I am perfectly well aware of Zimmerman's account, and nothing I've said contradicted it; I didn't type out every single detail because I was hitting the highlights in order to make a point about self-defense. "Jumping him" refers to the fact that Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and then got on top of him in order to beat upon him.
If you have something to support the contention that Zimmerman did not, in fact, have a broken nose and a gash requiring stitches, please produce it.
Bru..Your statement is the first I have read or heard indicating
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 10:26pm.
Zimmerman even received stitches. I recall his legal advisor saying a couple of days after the story first became national news that he had suffered a scalp laceration which probably should have been treated with a few stitches, but wasn't.
What is your source to the contrary?
Jer
jer et al
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 11:59pm.
I haven't seen anything definitive on the "beating his head against the sidewalk" comments out there; in fact, I thought at one point I saw a local news report that showed the scene taped off, presumably the day after the incident. You'd think blood would have been evident on concrete even though it had been raining.
But that doesn't mean Martin wasn't assaulting Zimmerman or that Zimmerman didn't suffer a head laceration. He could have hit a rock or Martin could have hit Zimmerman from behind first. Maybe with a rock or other object.
Still, the reality of the situation was likely wraught with confusion and fear. I've maintained from the beginning that the shooting could have been a result of those circumstances. Justified? I'm guessing it was but the law might say otherwise. What I don't think it was was vigilantism and that's been my rub from the beginning.
Its shameful that people would perpetuate a myth to forward an agenda when one life has been lost and one thoroughly ruined. What's being sacrificed is morality.
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 12:21am.
Well, you've been and continue to be a voice of reason and a valuable source for accurate details during the discussions of this tragedy. I've read, seen and heard "sidewalk", "pavement" and "ground". I think if there were "repeated slamming", it was most likely "ground", but perhaps, as you suggest, the back of Zimmerman's head struck a rock or some other hard object at some point during the altercation.
Justified? I would be guessing that it wasn't if it weren't for "stand your ground" which may say otherwise.
Jer
jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 12:32am.
Like I said, the law will determine whether it was justified, or, at the very least, if there is justification for leveling charges. I don't believe by any stretch there was intent.
.bk...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 2:12am.
Intent by whom to do what?
Jer
I guess that should be "intent of whom". Matthew?
Nope. I wasn't ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 2:19am.
there.
MD
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 9:35am.
I don't believe there was any intent by Zimmerman to kill Martin when he initially got out of his vehicle. In other words, I don't believe Zimmerman was "hunting" Martin, and I seriously doubt he had any intention of using his weapon when he first called police.
Totally agree, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 1:24am.
And I've never thought or suggested anything to the contrary.
Jer
Just curious..
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 2:11am.
So is it your contention that as Zimmerman related to a friend that he wasn't struck from behind, but was in fact facing Martin when he was attacked, that said admission somehow mitigates Martin's attack of Zimmerman?
No, Pickle...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 2:44am.
I'm not saying it is conclusive or even necessarily mitigating evidence regarding a self-defense claim. It's just another piece of the 'factual' puzzle which should be considered in combination with all of the other pieces presented to a jury. But, I don't believe it can be reasonably disputed that, if one focuses just on that single detail, a surprise attack from the rear accompanied by a sucker punch would place the deceased in a worse light than would a face-to-face altercation even if initiated by Martin.
Jer
HI and its selective application of the 2nd Amendment
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:29pm.
ucw is clearly the expert - he LIVES in HI - but everything I have read about HI indicates that it is about the most hostile place to be in the union if you own a gun. With the exception, perhaps, of NYC and DC.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I can assure you of one thing.
Submitted by JLin on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:13pm.
If Ed Schultz or Martin had broken my nose and knocked me down, I'd have put two in his chest and one in his head for good measure. End of story. Lean forward on that.
Consider this.
Submitted by JLin on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:15pm.
Had Zimmerman not been armed would he be alive today?
Possibly. After all, if he
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:26pm.
Possibly. After all, if he hadn't been armed he might not have had the courage to pursue the big scary black kid who looked like might be on drugs, and could have just let the police find out that Martin was a guest at a nearby house making a snack run during an NBA game. You know, the thing that would have happened if he'd listened to the police dispatcher.
Jason
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 4:31pm.
You are so right. If Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin, Martin might not have attacked him, breaking his nose and pounding his skull into the cement.
Of course if no one ever got involved we would have a lot more crime. Neighborhood watch groups were set up because the police can't be everywhere and they were tired of the 99% stealing their stuff.
Rad, you have no more
Submitted by JasonC on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 5:26pm.
Rad, you have no more evidence that Trayvon threw the first punch or that he wasn't as justified in doing so as Zimmerman claims to be in shooting him than I do that Zimmerman threw the first punch. Two things seem pretty clear:
1. Trayvon got the upper hand in the fight. That doesn't mean he instigated it.
2. If Trayvon did start the altercation, it wasn't like he just jumped out of the bushes and started attacking a stranger. Zimmerman chose to inappropriately pursue someone who was breaking no laws. What happened in between, neither of us can say.
Jason
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 6:25pm.
Was it inappropriate? His goal seems to have been to be able to lead the police to Martin, not to apprehend him. As has been stated, Zimmerman replied "OK" when told the police didn't need him to follow Martin.
Getting the upper hand doesn't allow someone to pound another person's head into the ground either.
His mind is made up.
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 9:30pm.
Seems to me Jason's mind is made up. Zimmerman is guilty, Martin is innocent. Notice he will bend over backwards to give Martin the benefit of the doubt but refuses to do the same for Zimmerman.
As I say, the truth is a victim here as well.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Funny how many people on this
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 3:19am.
Funny how many people on this board have made up their mind that the "Martin jumped Zimmerman, the noble neighborhood watcher, and was beating him relentlessly when Zimmerman shot him" narrative, which is both less probable and unproven, is the correct one. I don't see you dropping your The Truth Died line on them.
Funny how even more people have stayed quiet...
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 4:52am.
. ...till you decided to butt in an pop yer yap.
Funny too how the whole thing was investigated once and the State's Attorney declined to make an arrest due to lack of evidence. But let's jump down the throat of the many people on this board. Mmmmmkay? Seeing as how up until recently, before the whole racial profilin' brouhaha, Mr. Zimmerman's story was measuring up "charges bein' filed"-wise.
Visit NB more often
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 8:37pm.
That's because you missed the first thread.
Had you, you would have seen in the middle of a thoughtful discussion on the matter, I broke that line out.
I don't think we will ever find out what happened. Thanks to advocates of group rights, populist shriekers, opportunists and politicians. Oh yeah, and the media, whose lines you are parroting with ease.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"inappropriately pursue"?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 11:56pm.
So,what law did Zimmerman break prior to the altercation? I'm just curious about that. As far as I can tell, Zimmerman had every legal right to be where he was at the time.
UpNorth ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 12:46am.
I have read through the thread, and JasonC is still a lib, still just a sensitive soul, and is still seeking justice for the poor minorities in the U.S.
If Trayvon Martin had been a homosexual, JasonC might well have gotten in touch with his old dance partner, mamabear, and the two of them would have lit this place up with liberal righteousness.
Man, it would have been awesome; vandamage, dave-worrell, JasonC and grislybear - howling at the moon, barking at any conservative inclination to assume innocence until proven guilty on the part of Zimmerman, because, you know, the "victim" was not only a black male; he was a YOUNG black male.
Betcha a million bucks neither VD, worrell, JasonC, or grislybear ever patrolled a minority neighborhood in uniform; but damn if they wouldn't have all the answers for making street patrol a walk in the park with an ice cream sundae waiting at the end of shift.
Opinions are fine; we all have 'em, but sometimes the notions put forth are more execrable than laughable.
MD
UpNorth...Jason didn't claim it was an unlawful pursuit...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 1:07am.
only that it was "inappropriate" in the sense that it was imprudent, unwise, or evidenced a lack of sound judgment--just as the 911 operator intimated--or that the circumstances were insufficient to warrant the continued pursuit of someone not actively engaged in the commission of a crime, especially since the police were in route. Zimmerman's description of Martin's questionable behavior was painfully weak.
I'm sure Zimmerman wanted to keep Martin in his sights so he could direct the authorities accordingly. But one should also recognize how doing so could appear provocative, threatening and even frightening to Martin and lead to disastrous results. And it was the heightened risk of a bad ending which outweighs any potential advantage gained by following a kid doing nothing more than looking suspicious.
Jer
I agree that it was a bad ending, Jer, but, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 1:42am.
since there is no way, short of possessing a crystal ball, to know the future, your point about 'the heightened risk of a bad ending outweighing any potential advantage gained by following a kid doing nothing more than looking suspicious' fits more properly under the heading "the proper actions of a see no evil, hear no evil type", rather than under the heading "events that occurred based on the situation".
To wit:
Zimmerman, being part of a neighborhood "watch" type organization; and upon seeing someone, in Zimmerman's neighborhood, 'doing nothing more than looking suspicious', should do what - ignore what he sees?
Kind of defeats the purpose of the organization, eh?
Also, given Trayvon Martin's physical dimensions, I doubt he appeared to be a 'kid'.
MD
Matthew...even if he had abided by the recommendation
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 1:54am.
of the 911 operator and stayed put, Zimmerman would not have "ignored" what he had seen. He would have already done what he had done on dozens of prior occasions: reported his concerns to the police who were promptly dispatched to the scene.
Jer
Matthew...even if he had abided by the recommendation
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 1:57am.
of the 911 operator and stayed put, Zimmerman would not have "ignored" what he had seen. He would have already done what he had done on dozens of prior occasions: reported his concerns to the police who were promptly dispatched to the scene.
Jer
I have no idea why that double posted.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 2:01am.
It was not my fault.
Jer
It is teh Cisco.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 3:06am.
It gives you the heavy mouse fingers.
Jer, you do understand the difference between ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 2:16am.
"--the police who were promptly dispatched to the scene.", and police arriving promptly on scene, correct?
In my world , "watch" means keep an eye on; and I don't mean that as "watch" a crime being committed.
Zimmerman apparently took his 'watch' job seriously.
Whether Zimmerman was overzealous, and will ultimately be held responsible for a criminal action; or whether Martin was wrong in his actions, will hopefully be determined at some point.
MD
Do I understand the difference? You and I have interacted
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 2:58am.
over the past two and a half years probably as much as or more than any other two members of NB. What do you think?
As far as the rest of your comment, there is little over which to quibble, but even that little bit will have to wait for later quibbling.
G'night...
Jer
'doing nothing more than
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 3:24am.
'doing nothing more than looking suspicious'
Even this is dubious. Have you read Zimmerman's description of Martin's "suspicious behavior"? He couldn't even tell the dispatcher one real thing that made Martin stand out as suspicious. I would be much more willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt if there weren't so many indications that his initial pursuit of Martin was utterly baseless. A person you don't happen to recognize existing in a public area near where you happen to own property does not warrant a call to the cops or pursuit.
Jason...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 4:18am.
My recollection is that Zimmerman reported to the dispatcher something to the effect that the subject was acting strange like he was on drugs and up to no good while appearing to be thinking about "gold jewelry", all of said behavior occurring during the course of his occupying the body of a young black male, or otherwise and at all times while being of the African-American persuasion, insofar as such color and race could be ascertained from an examination of the facial features visible beneath a garment generally preferred by inner-city "gangsta" types and known as a "hoodie".
I may have expanded just a bit on the conversation.
Jer
Yes.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 4:46am.
And Mr. Zimmerman's actions certainly warranted havin' a can o' whoop-ass opened up on him, huh? Following a guy on a public street. I would turn around and commence to the beatin' myself, I caught a guy following me on a public street talking to the cops.
Utterly baseless pursuits always leads to utterly baseless beatdowns in Binky and The Vet's world. Maybe Uncle Jer's too. He is skilled in the art of bar fighting.
It would appear that JasonC ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 5:00am.
is stepping in to fill the liberal void left after vandamage had his ass handed to him and bailed.
JasonC's statements pretty much mirror what VD and and dave_worrell had to say - "Zimmerman bad, bad man. Trayvon Martin just an innocent black youth, minding his own business prior to being murdered."
So far, their tale of woe amounts to nothing more than bleeding heart BS.
MD
Guys, would you please consider
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 6:28am.
cutting Jason some slack. Surely NewsBusters can tolerate--even benefit from-- a contrarian voice as eloquent and educated and reasoned as is Jason's.
He has been a member here for six years [although his appearances have been far too infrequent in recent months], with an authentic NB pedigree--not a sleeper or highjacked account or someone with multiple identities who keeps returning from the dead or who has ostensibly been commenting for a lengthy period while only a handful of posts can actually be tracked.
You're not going to agree with most--maybe not with any--of Jason's opinions and positions, but his arguments will almost always be interesting and well-crafted and thought-provoking. I can assure you NB is in absolutely no danger of being buried under an avalanche of liberal propaganda. We are and will remain a tiny minority.
Give the real liberal trolls hell. Give the rest of us a hard time. But give us a fair chance to be heard.
Jer
Good morning Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 6:44am.
Jasons posts are filled with distortions, misrepresentations and assumptions. It's nice of you to provide him with a lawyer but be aware the c in his name stands for crap.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
It's true, Jer. My name is
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 9:14am.
It's true, Jer. My name is Jason Crap. Don't know what mom and dad were thinking. That's almost as bad as Johnny Cash's Boy Named Sue...
Thanks for the kind words, Jer. But not to worry. I know what to expect when I log on here.
How much?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 7:41am.
Nice job with the spit sloppy word slatherin'. Was it cash? It better be cash. You know better than to take a check.
We will go easy on Binky when he finally pops out that one name of the guy that has to f off and die. Or one name of the 123 people that die every single day due to the lack of health care in this country, this from a bogus long debunked study he brought here 10 months ago. Let's see. 10 months. That is 300 days. Times 123 a day. Equals = 36,900 people that have died on the street because they don't have health coverage. 36,900 that could have been spared had Binky given us some names and we all pitched in collectively to get them some badly needed medicine before they died. But he coldly refused to provide even one name. So they all died a sad lonely health insuranceless death and it is Binky's fault.
He shoulda given that money to one of those poor pitiful souls that are dying on the street. It would have been better spent.
I do believe that saying "F
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 9:21am.
I do believe that saying "F off and Die" to poor people is (figuratively) the philosophy of privatized health insurance without a public option.
As for my poorly researched statistic, I thought I apologized and conceded the point to you, Vet. If not, consider this post a belated "you were right" and apology.
And Jer, just be glad I didn't make an appearance during the Rush/Fluke/Birth Control controversy. The arguments that that would have led to would probably have gotten me booted.
Humbly accepted and dropped.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 11:09am.
Now we know why Jer had the kind words.
You can still go back and comment. You will likely get no argument over any outrage over the slut remarks seeing as how the man apologized. You likely will get plenty of blowback over her testimony though. Seeing as how ---
Thanks Vet, that's downright
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 11:16am.
Thanks Vet, that's downright decent of you.
Nope, I am going to decline the Fluke/Limbaugh invitation. Gay marriage and reproductive politics are the cultural issues that I am most passionate/adamant about and, perhaps not coincidentally, also the cultural issues that I find conservatives to be most passionate/adamant about. My weighing in now, especially so long after the fact, is a recipe for me running my mouth all weekend, angering/alienating people, and just generally being as close to a troll as I'm capable of getting. So thanks, but no thanks.
Reproductive politics?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 7:35am.
Who talks like that? If you are so passionate about it, you oughta be glued to your seat lately ---
One trivial thought that I have not seen elsewhere: I wonder if the Left/Obama/Kathleen Sebelius didn’t shoot themselves in the backside when they decided to apply a chainsaw to the religious liberty of the Catholic hospitals, etc. That episode, I think, brought out in sharp relief the unprecedented degree of coercion inexorably inherent in Obamacare, the eagerness with which the Left employs it, and the thoughtlessness with which the Left is willing to destroy the institutions of civil society as they pursue their political goals. They really believe that people of religious faith are simpletons standing in the way of ever-greater individual dependence upon Leviathan. And so I have a sense — but no direct evidence — that Kennedy and perhaps Roberts may have recoiled in horror from the prospect of Obamacare more deeply than otherwise might have been the case, as they were confronted with the prospective wholesale descent into economic fascism that is the very essence of Obamacare.
It seems, Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 9:09pm.
that lefties speaking out on any subject tend to argue from the viewpoint of liberal ideology.
That pretty much
neutralizesnegates any chance that either eloquence, education, or reasonability is going to be the foundational basis for their argument (s).If you can show me any conditional benefits, derived from or that accrue to, your side of the aisle; then I shall change the emphasis in my previous sentence thusly:
"That pretty much
negatesneutralizes ---"MD
Uh, Jer?
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 9:24pm.
You realize, of course, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman not to pursue for Zimmerman's safety, right?
Compared to what? A 5 year old in a wheel chair being frisked by the TSA?
How's that hindsight working out for you? Pretty good, it seems.
Why would there be a heightened risk? Zimmerman lives in the neighborhood, and as the neighborhood watch captain apparently knew most of the people who lived there. He saw someone he did not recognize and contacted police. What would you do, ignore the kid? The 6' plus tall kid who fit the description of many of the the people suspected of a recent spate of break-ins in the community? Had the kid just been respectful, talked to Zimmerman or kept his distance but waited for police, AND he was doing nothing more than looking suspicious, police would have determined that relatively quickly and he would have been sent on his way. None the worse for wear. In fact, he likely would have been eliminated as a potential suspect in any recent, unsolved crimes once it was revealed he lived in the Miami area and was just visiting until the school allowed him to return.
We don't know what happened in the few moments leading up to the shooting, but we should not demagog Zimmerman for reporting him to the police; there's nothing wrong nor over-reactive in that action. Had an individual seen but ignored by Zimmerman gone on to commit a home invasion, Zimmerman would have been criticized for not reporting him. Hell, the DHS has a whole campaign asking people to do exactly what Zimmerman did up to a point, and yet he's being demonized for doing it.
Ding.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 11:48pm.
bkeyser: Hell, the DHS has a whole campaign asking people to do exactly what Zimmerman did... (with link)
That's gonna leave a mark.
Nope...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 1:34am.
barely a scratch, which didn't require a single stitch.
Jer
So the DHS recommends we call in if we see something.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:22am.
Quote --- Report suspicious activity to LOCAL law enforcement or call 9-1-1 in case of emergency.
So the man acted just as he was told. He called local law enforcement.
Uncle Jer (referring to Mr Zimmerman following Mr. Martin): But one should also recognize how doing so could appear provocative, threatening and even frightening to Martin and lead to disastrous results.
Yes. We are now to understand that following someone, that is walking behind someone on a public street, on a public sidewalk. Public as in c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation. That is, anyone and everyone is allowed access to the public sidewalks and streets. This is now threatening? I am on my way to the bar on North 7th St. I am currently on South 7th, headed north. There is a guy in front of me, walking north as well. I am now appearing provocative,, threatening and even frightening to the guy in front of me and this could and lead to disastrous results?
Come on. Do you listen to yourself when you type these things out? Public sidewalk is public sidewalk is PUBLIC SIDEWALK. Following someone on a public sidewalk is not grounds for a beat down. Evah.
Has there been evidence of
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 11:53pm.
Has there been evidence of Martin not being respectful?
Other then his
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 11:57pm.
Twit account?
Why?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 3:17am.
Do you still have room under your bed?
bal
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 12:52pm.
I would say the testimony of Zimmerman backed by an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the ground was less than respectful.
I thought you meant it lead
Submitted by balboa on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 10:34pm.
I thought you meant it lead to the altercation.
➚ He should have been respectful
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 6:08pm.
You know how those Southern Democrats (George Zimmerman) get when a black person doesn't show proper respect.
How absolutely two-faced of the Liberal Press, who jumped early and often on "Gabby Giffords' shooter was almost certainly a Tea Partier", now quiet as church mice that a Democrat killed Trayvon Martin.
What's that motherbelt says about liberals having twice as many standards as conservatives?
I do have a response to your post, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 1:32am.
but, first, I need to figure out how to couch it in language sufficiently insulting to atone for my prior "sucking up" to you, which Bru evidently found inequitable and annoying.
Jer
I can take it Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 12:51pm.
hammer away.
Still waiting Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 11:06pm.
`
Hold your horses, Tonto...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 2:13am.
It will probably be Sunday night before I post a more detailed reply. In the meantime, it might be helpful to peruse this document--CITY OF SANTA FE, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SANTA FE CITIZEN POLICE ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION--Citizens' On Patrol Program--Standard Operating Procedure Manual.
It's not as lengthy as the title implies. I assume it is fairly typical, but I emphasize "assume" since thus far I haven't found any other manuals with which it may be compared. Anyway, please note how frequently it is stressed that the duty of the volunteer(s) is to report suspicious activity or wrongdoing--not to follow, confront, apprehend, etc., any suspect.
Jer
Jer, before you get too involved in your more detailed
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 12:48pm.
response, you might want to consider a few particular areas of note:
My first challenge to you was relative Zimmerman following Martin. It was clear that once Martin took off running, Zimmerman attempted to follow him. Much has been made of this with the images of some sort of manhunt being orchestrated by Zimmerman as the preferred narrative by the media and Martin supporters. The 911 dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to follow Martin, but as I said, that was for Zimmerman's safety as Martin was an unknown entity at the time. But, let's go to the tape, shall we?
All-in-all, we're looking at about a 36 second pursuit which concludes in Zimmerman not knowing Martin's location.
By the way, I clearly hear Zimmerman say "f***in' punks" right before the 2:37 mark. I guess you can hear wha you want to hear.
The Sanford Neighborhood Watch Program Handbook is here. There is a Power Point document for the Neighborhood Watch Program here. You mentioned that Zimmerman's description of the suspicious activity was "painfully weak". To me, it seems to fit quite reasonably within the guidelines specified by these two documents; and taken in context with the relative crime in the neighborhood, it seems perfectly reasonable for him to make the call.
Much has been made -and I assume you would get around to it as well given the notation in your Sante Fe link- about Zimmerman carrying a weapon in the performance of his NW duties. There are conflicting reports as to whether he was "officially" on duty at the time he observed Martin, though I have seen reports that this neighborhood didn't have an official NW program registered with a national NW organization; rather Martin had volunteered to serve as the captain for a largely otherwise unmanned community activity. I havn't heard if there are other NW volunteers from this neighborhood. The Handbook I linked above makes no reference to carrying a handgun; I'm suspect, however, it's possible that under formal training this issue would be addressed. I don't know if Zimmerman was ever formally trained.
But then there is the letter from the "City Manager", Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, on March 23rd which reads:
It would seem to me that unless there was a record of Zimmerman assuming the role of NW on Feb 26th at a time prior to the incident, then it would be difficult to prove he was "on duty" at the time -whether or not carrying a weapon in the performance of such duty was legal, illegal, discouraged, or otherwise improper. If there was a sign-in sheet in the clubhouse, for example, that indicated that at 1500, Zimmerman assumed the duties of NW and was patrolling the streets of the community in his SUV, then it could be established that his statement regarding a personal errand was possibly false. Even then, however, a volunteer position wouldn't likely bar him from conducting a personal errand during his "shift" if he had the need. Police officers on patrol stop to eat, after all.
In the end, Zimmerman's statement that he was attacked while walking back to his vehicle seems plausible. He indicated he was screaming for help while being attacked on the ground; neighbors have corroborated this. He was fully cooperative with police even indicating immediately that he was the shooter and that he was still armed. The police station video clearly shows one officer looking at the back of Zimmerman's shaved head for an extended period- he obviously wasn't looking for weapons. And the Police report filed only hours after the incident indicates Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head, and was treated by medical personel prior to transport.
You're up.
[Edit] I don't know why I have such an interest in this but...
I looked up the address for the incident according to the police report. Google Maps locates here. The clubhouse can be seen to the north of the pool and the mailboxes are probably in the small detached building to the east of the clubhouse. If you listen to Zimmerman's 911 call while looking at the map, the events become a little more clear. I would guess that Zimmerman's SUV was parked on Twin Trees in the area that runs east and west since he was directing officers to come past the clubhouse and turn left. Zimmerman indicated that Martin was running toward the other entrance which is to the southeast at Twin Trees and S. Oregon. The incident (assuming the Google pointer is correct) occurred some distance from the other entrance.
It looks to me like Zimmerman may have been walking around looking for Martin after he lost sight of him. It also looks like Martin, if he ran down Twin Trees toward the other entrance, doubled back between the townhomes on Twin Trees and Retreat View. I would like to know the address of his father's finacee to get a better picture of where he was headed (though surely the police know that address) but if it was outside of this gated community where the incident occurred, as I suspect it is, then why would Martin double back?
More: I'm looking to find the fiancee's (Brandy Green) address which I can't confirm, but in the process, came across this website. The author does a better job of laying out the details I implied above, including using the same map and 911 call. Again, why would Martin double back? I think it's becomming more clear why charges weren't extended.
[Edit 2] I just want to point out one more thing- 'ole Rosanne Barr retweeted a document this morning that purports to show Zimmerman's home address. It's 6.6 miles (by road) and in another zipcode from the location of the incident. Toure was mocking the claim that Zimmerman was going to or coming from a Target store. There is a Target store in the Marketplace at Seminole Towne Center located just north of where the incident occurred. Is it possible Zimmerman was telling the truth?
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:06pm.
Just finished reading your post and will check out the linked info after dinner.
Outstanding work, Marine. And if Bru objects to the "sucking up" compliment, I really don't give a shit.
Jer
~Duck, dodge, evade, escape, and twirl off the point
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:09pm.
all you want.
Looks like I'm not the only one seeing this
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 5:56pm.
The Daily Caller seems to agree with my assessment. 24 hours later.
The Truth died a few seconds later
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 03/29/2012 - 8:00pm.
Interesting how selective you are being here, which goes back to my earlier point:
The Truth was killed right after Mr. Martin, so thanks to the media, opportunists, populist shriekers, and the like, we are never, ever going to know what happened.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I know this has been discussed, but since you're late
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 9:46am.
to the party Jason...
What evidence do you have that Zimmerman pursued Martin? How far did he pursue him and in what manner did he pursue him? Was his weapon out at the time? Did he call after Martin? Was he low-crawling, perched in a deer stand, or conducting a tactical clearing technique?
The fact is -according to the police transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call- that when the dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn't need to follow Martin, his answer was "Ok". Why do you assume he didn't end his pursuit at that moment? Zimmerman reported to police that he was attacked as he was walking back to his vehicle.
How far was the incident from Zimmerman's vehicle? How far had Zimmerman walked from his vehicle by the time he made the call, and then during the call, up until the dispatcher told him to cease the pursuit?
See, you can't answer any one of those questions, yet -since all of the news reports play the transcript up to the point the dispatcher tells Zimmerman to cease the pursuit BUT NOT Zimmerman's response- you've decided that Zimmerman pursued this kid into the shadows against the orders of police and was therefor wrong for doing so. You've been influenced by media reports which we all now know were designed to do just that.
~Alright, Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 03/30/2012 - 8:37am.
I am officially annoyed.
You've read my comments on this topic from the beginning, which means you are fully aware that I defended Martin until more facts, like a full transcript and clarified witness statements, came out. I've linked extensively to informative sources and explained my reasoning in detail, which evolved based on facts.
After all that, you respond to me as if I were some mindless, knee-jerk defender of the shooter who's making up crap, and aggravate the insult by sucking up to bk immediately afterward.
You presume too much on our friendship, and I will no longer discuss this topic with you.
It has been investigated once.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 4:35am.
And Mr. Zimmerman's story matches the evidence and witness stories. The original State Attorney did not find grounds for charges. Or at least not enough yet.
This would tend to give the weight of the argument to Mr. Zimmerman. Otherwise we are to believe Mr. Zimmerman is lying, the first responder Policemen are lying or incompetent, the investigators are lying or incompetent and the State Attorney is lying or incompetent.
And now we have yet more investigations. And if they should conclude the same thing as the first investigation, why then the list of conspirators just grows and grows.
But yeah, it is us. Dingbat conservatives on the NB site. Too stupid to really understand the mechanics of the whole thing.
~Leftists lie to support their desired narrative
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 10:22am.
and they think that everyone else does, too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quit whining, Jer. Since you're going to snipe at someone who was initially willing to believe that Martin was innocent while fawning on someone who wasn't then you'll just have to take your ration of sh!t for it. I know that as a liberal you can't help being inconsistent and intellectually dishonest, but you could try not to be so obvious about it.
Bingo, Bru.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 03/31/2012 - 9:52pm.
You summed up the left's problem in one sentence.
Bru...Would you please take a few minutes and point out
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 3:17am.
just how and where I mistreated you? How and where I've whined? How and where I've been intellectually dishonest? Exactly what I have done or said or insinuated to warrant a "ration of sh!t"?
I've reviewed the thread and I fail to see any justification for your surprisingly indignant reaction. I would appreciate the chance to explain or clarify or apologize for any statement of mine which may have been poorly worded, misunderstood, or perhaps was insensitive or otherwise inappropriate.
As far as "sucking up", I honestly can't think of anyone at this website to whom I have "sucked up" more--if that's your preferred term...I personally prefer "complimented", "praised", "expressed my admiration" "tried to be nice"--than I have to you, both on and off the comment threads.
Hopefully, we can work this out via a cordial and frank discussion. Otherwise, I'll address the particulars in your posts without your participation. I won't allow your disparaging characterizations to stand unchallenged.
Jer
~Give me a break
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:19am.
I told you in my first comment above exactly what I was annoyed about. I elaborated further in my second comment.
That's it?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:56pm.
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Jer
~So you want me to repeat myself?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:58pm.
In what way were either of my comments unclear?
Interesting
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 8:42pm.
I notice JasonC and Dainbramage are nowhere to be found in response to the revelation that NBC doctored its tapes of the 911 call.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I doubt that has any
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 04/04/2012 - 9:14pm.
Makes any significant difference to them. Libs just, well you know,,,,
I have changed my mind about this case several times. Bout the only thing I believe now is the riot inciters, and race baiters need to be held account.
Hold em to the fire
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/05/2012 - 7:12pm.
No joke.
Zimmerman needs to sue to the point where he'll never need a MegaMillions ticket again. And he needs to sue a LOT of people and organizations.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)