E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mario Tama / Getty Images, file
Trayvon Martin supporters gather at a rally while listening to an overflow broadcast of a town hall meeting in Sanford, Florida, on March 26 about Martin's death.
LONDON -- The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin has raised fundamental questions about what is the right and the wrong thing to do in violent situations.
The circumstances of Martin’s death are still unclear, but his killer George Zimmerman’s argument is essentially that he was defending himself after the teenager attacked him.
Authorities in Florida initially seemed to believe this, freeing Zimmerman without charge. Under Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, Zimmerman was not required to flee before using force.
But, after widespread uproar, a fresh investigation saw him charged with second-degree murder.
Florida will eventually come to its own answer about whether Zimmerman, who has pleaded not guilty, was justified in using lethal force. But what would other legal systems make of a similar case?
NBCNews.com spoke with legal experts to ask what would likely happen to a shooter if a killing similar to the one described by Zimmerman happened in different countries.
We presented them with a fictionalized case based on his account -- see below -- and asked them to analyze the possible outcomes, particularly how the various judicial systems would handle an assertion of self-defense.
It should be stressed that the experts' opinions are speculative and based on limited information, and the factual record of the Zimmerman case is still not fully established.
Joe Burbank / AP, file
George Zimmerman, left, and attorney Don West appear before Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. on June 29, 2012, during a bond hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center in Sanford, Fla.
Zimmerman's attorney appeals judge's decision to stay on case
ENGLAND
Michael Bohlander, chair in comparative and international criminal law at Durham University, England, said a shooter under such circumstances would “very likely be charged with murder and firearms offenses.” English law does not have different degrees of murder.
If convicted of murder, this would result in a mandatory life sentence. The judge could impose a “whole life” order, meaning the shooter would die in prison, but would more likely impose a “tariff” of the minimum number of years that had to be served in prison before release on parole was considered.
In March 2011, there were 2,650 life-sentence prisoners with tariffs of up to 10 years; 4,350 with over 10 and up to 20 years; 850 with tariffs of 20 years or more; and 41 serving whole-life sentences, according to U.K. government figures.
Bohlander, who is the editor-in-chief of the International Criminal Law Review and who trained the Iraqi tribunal that tried Saddam Hussein, said the shooter might possibly be acquitted if he could show he acted in self-defense, but doubted this would be possible.
He said authorities would take into account who launched the first attack and whether the shooter was following with or without "reasonable cause."
“Provoked self-defense situations do not mean that you cannot defend yourself at all, but they restrict your range of legitimate responses," Bohlander said.
Zimmerman attorney plans to call for 'stand your ground' hearing
He said the use of a gun in this scenario could be seen as "unreasonable and disproportionate, because it could have been expected that a warning shot or even the announcement that he had a gun would have been sufficient to scare an unarmed youth off.”
"This is not even taking into account that under English law the possession of the gun would have been illegal anyway. So I very much doubt that self-defense would fly under English law,” he added.
The shooter might try to bargain for a manslaughter verdict if the partial defense of “loss of control” could be established, Bohlander said.
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 of English law, a person who kills someone should not be convicted of murder if they did so because of a "loss of self-control" because of fear of serious violence. Their actions also need to be in keeping with how a person of the same sex and similar age "with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint" would have acted in the circumstances.
However Bohlander said “it would seem unlikely that a jury would find that loss of control provided a defense here.”
Trayvon Martin's parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, react to George Zimmerman's first television interview, telling TODAY's Matt Lauer that they wish Trayvon Martin could tell his side of the story.
GERMANY
Bohlander, who was previously a judge in Germany and dealt with murder cases, said a shooter in a case like this in Germany would probably be charged with “totschlag,” a basic murder charge that requires intent to kill.
However, if there was some kind of racist motivation, he would “very likely” be charged with “mord” or aggravated murder, Bohlander said.
Zimmerman: 'I'm not a racist and I'm not a murderer'
If convicted of “totschlag” he would face a sentence of five to 15 years. “Mord” is punishable by a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole until after 15 years in prison.
Bohlander said it was “highly unlikely” that self-defense would be a justification in this case under Germany law, which he said was similar to English law in this area.
He said a “less serious” case of totschlag “could be imagined if [the shooter] was seriously maltreated by [the deceased] and immediately lost self-control.”
However, Bohlander said this argument seemed “unlikely” to persuade the court and, even if successful, would lead to a sentence of one to 10 years.
According to an FBI report investigating whether race was a factor in the shooting of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin, none of the dozens of people the FBI interviewed said shooter George Zimmerman is a racist. NBC's Kerry Sanders reports.
SOUTH AFRICA
Jonathan Burchell, professor of criminal law at South Africa’s University of Cape Town, said that, under the country's criminal law, a shooter in such a case might be able to show that “although he may have acted unlawfully, he nevertheless genuinely lacked the knowledge or foresight of the unlawfulness of his conduct because he may have genuinely feared for his own life and so not be liable for murder.”
“The question would then be whether this belief of [the shooter] was not just genuine, but also reasonable in the circumstances. If [the shooter]’s belief was unreasonable in the circumstances -- seeing as he was the one armed … and that he had been told by the police not to pursue [the deceased] -- he could be liable in South Africa for culpable homicide, the unlawful, negligent killing of another, as opposed to murder which is the unlawful, intentional killing of another,” he added.
Even if the shooter had provoked the encounter, Burchell said, “he could still in principle act in self-defense to unlawful attack upon himself …. if the provoked response exceeded the initial provocation.”
But, he said the shooter still needed to “act reasonably.”
“[The shooter]’s use of a single lethal shot at close range must, according to the principles of self-defense, be proportional to the attack by [the deceased],” Burchell said.
Memorial's removal in Sanford sets off new tension months after Trayvon Martin shooting
He said authorities would take into consideration whether a warning shot or a “shot to incapacitate, rather than kill” could have been fired.
“There is no duty to flee in South African law, but if there are reasonable alternatives available the accused should use these before resorting to lethal force,” Burchell said.
He said it was possible that the deceased had been acting in self-defense if he did actually confront the shooter.
“There could possibly have been a situation where [the deceased] anticipated an imminent attack on himself by [the shooter] when they had the ‘verbal exchange’ ... and that [the deceased] was therefore the one defending himself against threats or imminent infliction of harm by [the shooter].”
Mother of Trayvon Martin seeks damages, compensation in son's death
Burchell said that the shooter “could be charged with, and possibly convicted of, culpable homicide.”
He said that a sentence for culpable homicide would be at the judge’s discretion and would be less than one for murder.
Burchell added that the shooter's “persistent following” of the deceased, “who has not done anything wrong,” could “amount to invasion of privacy” or “injury to dignity in the form of harassment.” This was a criminal and civil offense in South African law, he said.
After Judge Kenneth Lester set a bond of $1 million, Zimmerman made bail with strict conditions governing his release. NBC's Kate Snow reports.
CANADA
Andrew Botterell, the associate editor of the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence and an assistant professor at the University of Western Ontario in the law faculty and philosophy department, said a shooter would likely be charged with second-degree murder in Canada.
“First degree murder is out, since there was no planning and deliberation … The issue is whether [the shooter] intended to kill [the deceased], or intended to cause him bodily harm knowing that death was likely to result,” Botterell said. “I think a good case can be made that [the shooter] did intend to cause bodily harm — he didn't shoot [the deceased] in order to scare him — and he knew that the likely result of shooting somebody in the chest would be death. This suggests that a charge of second-degree murder would be appropriate.”
Botterell said they “key question” would be whether the dead teenager's assault on the shooter was provoked or unprovoked.
“... [Canadian law] requires among other things that in order for the accused to be entitled to the defense of self-defense the accused must have ‘declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose,’” he said.
Four months after Trayvon Martin shooting, Sanford police chief fired
If the shooter clearly did not retreat when he had a chance to do so, then he would not be entitled to self-defense if he had provoked the assault, Botterell said.
He said that if it was established that the teen's assault was not provoked by the shooter, then the law still required the shooter to show he believed “on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm” except by using lethal self-defensive force.
“Were [the shooter's] actions reasonable in the circumstances? Would a reasonable person in his position believe that only by using lethal force could he preserve his life? Possibly, if we take the banging of the head into the pavement to indicate an intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm,” he said. “If [the shooter’s] defense is accepted, he would be acquitted. If it were rejected, he would be sentenced … to life imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for 10 years.”
CHINA
Margaret Lewis -- associate professor of law at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, and an expert in Chinese law and criminal law – said the situation in China was “so different … that I'm hesitant to say definitively ‘here's how it would be handled.’”
She said justifiable self-defense was defined in “quite broad terms, leaving significant discretion in the hands of” prosecutors and judges.
“The lack of transparency as to how individual cases are handled in China makes it difficult, if not impossible, to project the specific charges and verdict,” Lewis said.
“That said, in light of the extremely high conviction rate, if [the shooter] was charged, I feel confident that he would be convicted of some crime. Not-guilty verdicts are extremely rare in China and, instead, the trial is generally more focused on what punishment is appropriate,” she added. “The high-conviction rate once charges are filed means that early intervention by lawyers during the initial investigation stage is particularly important if a suspect hopes to avoid criminal liability, or at least face lesser charges.”
She said it was “unlikely” that an accused person would be given bail pending trial.
Shellie Zimmerman, wife of Trayvon Martin killer, arrested on perjury charge
Lewis said that self-defense was “a timely issue in China because the nephew of blind activist Chen Guangcheng, who arrived in the U.S. earlier this year, was facing criminal homicide charges “arising out of an alleged altercation when police broke into his home when searching for his uncle.”
“The nephew claims he acted in self-defense, but reports are that local authorities have thus far refused to let the nephew select his own lawyer, a clear violation of the Criminal Procedure Law,” she added. “This case is unusual because of the highly politicized nature of the case, but it is a helpful illustration of the continuing challenges that defendants face in China when trying to exercise their legal rights.”
The fictionalized case provided to experts
1. Neighborhood watch coordinator John Smith, who is carrying a firearm, sees someone he thinks is acting suspiciously and begins to follow him, at first in his car, then on foot. The “suspicious” person, Charles Jones, has not done anything wrong. He has just been to a shop to buy some candy and a drink and is returning to the house where he is staying.
2. Smith calls the police while he is following his suspect, asking for a police officer to come and saying “These @!$%#s, they always get away.” He is told not to follow Jones.
3. Jones runs away and Smith loses sight of him.
4. Smith starts to return to his car. Jones returns and there is a verbal exchange.
5. Jones punches Smith, knocking him to the ground, then bangs his head off the ground.
6. Smith shoots Jones in the chest. The range of the shot is disputed, the gun is either in contact with Jones’ clothing or was fired at “intermediate” range. Police arrive, attempt to revive Jones, but he is pronounced dead at the scene.
7. Smith sustained a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.
8. Smith claims self-defense.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Israelis fret over 'lynching' of Palestinian
- Video: Poaching surge threatens survival of rhinos
- Anti-tanning 'Facekinis' cause stir on China beach
- Reports: Kim Jong Un will travel to Iran
- Slideshow: Migration in the Americas
- Reports: Olympic sprinter drowned when migrant boat sank
- With wife's conviction, what is next for China's Bo Xilai?
Leave a Comment:
Well seems like most of the world has common sense and know a murder when they see it.
Canada has made it a criminals paradise, criminals can come into your house in the middle of the night and you cant touch them, your sposed to call the police. A robber comes into your store and has a hand gun, your sposed to call the police, there is no reason except you have been stabbed repeatedly to fight back. If you have a baseball bat in your car for protection and a cop asks you why you have the bat you better not say its for protection or you will get arrested for having a concealed weapon, thats not a joke its the truth. Canada may have way better medical than the US, but they lack a certain common sense.
Who gives a flying fart in space what other countries would do? Their laws only apply to them. The only laws that apply to this case are Florida Law and US Law. Those of you that don't like Florida Law can move to another state. Those of you that don't like US law can leave the country. You won't be missed.
They probably also know the difference between murder and homicide.
If Zimmerman had been a police officer (he was acting as a police officer) we would not even be having this conversation. If you call 911 they will tell you to let the criminal take what ever they want. That little punk got what he deserved.
@Zathrose-- As an American living abroad, it's folks like you that make me not want to go back.
@Zathrose +1..... David enjoy the life over seas.....
Sauve, who in god's name told you that Canadians are not allowed to defend themselves from people invading their homes? A person can enter your house in the middle of the night and you can't touch them?? There is not a country IN THIS WORLD that has laws like that and there never will be. Put down the crack pipe, Jesus!
leroy brown
Perhaps he exaggerated a touch but it is LAW in several US states that one must RETREAT until they can retreat no further before taking an offensive stance INSIDE your own home. Without the Castle Doctrine that is the LAW. Fortunately MOST states have some flavor of Castle Doctrine these days.
@David-K
Please feel free to act on that desire and don't come back.
it's not the Trayven Martin Case. He is dead. It's the George Zimmerman case.
In Canada or anywhere else you can act against an intruder inside your home without penalty. A Canadian cop is not going to ask you why you have a baseball bat in your car unless circumstances that led to your stop would make it likely to be asked about the bat.
Using the premise of American exceptionalism to remain willfully ignorant and to assert that anyone who disagrees with you to leave the sate or country is a-hole territory at its finest. Congratulations on covering both in the same post.
Canada's murder rate is 8 times lower than the U.S. murder rate cuz thugs and criminals don't like the climate. Dontcha know, eh?
@Culheath
Actually, it is you that are showing your ignorance and acting like an a-hole. In America, our Country and our States have a little thing called Sovereignty. Look it up and educate yourself. We elect our officials and they pass the laws we want to live under and have our legal system operate under. We do not live under the laws from some European attempt at utopia or some Mid east attempt at a Calliphate. Therefore, what the rest of the world thinks should be done in this case is MEANINGLESS. And since it is meaningless, there is ZERO reason to care what they think.
Also, those residents of a state that don't like the laws have two choices:
1. Elect representatives that pass laws they want to live under
2. Move to a state that has laws they want to live under
Those residents of the country that don't like the laws have the same two choices on a national level.
Man, they can't even get the "fictionalized account" given to foreign legal experts correct, and they still find Zimmerman guilty of a crime.
Can you just imagine if they provided the REAL account, that is:
3.) Jones runs away, Smith follows him.
4.) Smith follows Jones down a walkway, makes a turn, continues following Jones down another walkway into a dark backyard between two rows of townhomes, and a verbal exchange occurs.
Just by looking at the location of where the altercation took place and the nearest street, its blatantly obvious that "Smith" never returned to his vehicle.
This whole article is ludicrous.
Four "experts" on foreign law commenting on a fictional case whereas the facts of said fictional case are not consistent with the actual case it is created to mirror.
1." The “suspicious” person, Charles Jones, has not done anything wrong"
Neither proven or unproven and in either case not relevant to the case at hand.
2. "He is told not to follow Jones"
Incorrect. He was advised by a 911 operator that " ...We don't need you to do that "
3. "Neighborhood watch coordinator John Smith, who is carrying a firearm"
Injected into the story to incite. John Smith at the time of said altercation was not acting in the capacity of Neighborhood watch coordinator at the time of this incident. If John Smith was a Pastor would that have been inserted into the story for the same desired effect? At the time of the incident John Smith was a concerned citizen of the neighborhood who was legally allowed to carry a firearm.
Would the scenario have the same effect if it said "John Smith who was a concerned citizen of the neighborhood who was legally allowed to carry a firearm for his own protection"
I'm actually surprised that NBCSpews did not quote Ghandi on what his views might have been.
But here's the real kicker: What carries more weight. The opinions of what 4 experts in other countries "PRESUME" to be the outcome of this scenario happening in those other countries or the views of Alan Dershowitz on actual applied law in OUR country?
Is anyone waiting to see all the evidence before deciding?
This fictionalized account had to of been put together months ago, you know, before George's story changed 5 more times... No. 5 is highly scrutinized as well and it is clear to see that some of George's story is being taken as fact without any reason to believe that it went down that way. Another scenario was George grabbed at or shoved Trayvon causing Trayvon to defend himself. Either way it is good to see the point of view from others around the world (with no hidden agenda) because what they think does matter and 9 out of 10 show and prove George would be found guilty.
Well this just affirms what I already believe; that thanks to the far right-wing, we are among the most backwards planet on earth when it comes to common sense. Thanks to ALEC, in most states any citizen can chase and gun down anyone who he/she perceives is a threat and walk away scott free by claiming self-defense, and the onus is on the victim to prove otherwise. The moral of the story is shoot to kill. Welcome to America, folks.
Hi Jeff N,
To go through your numbers
1) Not disputed. Mr.Martin was not doing anything wrong. Even Mr. Zimmerman only said that he looked suspicious. Of course there is that whole "guilty of being black while walking" charge, but even Mr. Zimmerman hasn't hasn't filed that one. A
Of course this is relevant. Even the police need to justify stopping someone, otherwise this is simply harassment. Is it OK for me to follow you home and stop you in the street just because I feel like it? Well it sounds like you'd probably shoot me, Hmmm, I get the feeling that most of Mr. Zimmerman's supporters would have shot his if they'd been in Mr. Martin's shoes.
2) Unless Mr. Zimmerman is not a native English speaker, you are arguing useless semantics. Besides, Mr. Z. answered "OK." So what was he saying?
"OK, I think that what you are saying to me is, go chase this kid down and pick a fight?" Also, he's may have been off duty (which makes his case even weaker) but supposedly, he is a trained neighborhood watch person. "Stay in your vehicle", "do not pursue or approach", and "do not carry a weapon" are all part of basic training. You are there to watch and to inform the police. He supposedly knows all of this already.
3) I really don't get your argument. At least as an "off duty neighborhood watch patrol" Mr. Z has a fall back excuse. "This is what he is trained to do, help keep his neighborhood safe." But things went wrong.... Sorry.
With our the "neighborhood watch" qualifier, Mr. Zimmerman was at best harassing Mr. Martin, and at worst stalking him. As the experts from other countries, and many of us Americans have said, if any one in this tragedy could have claimed self defense, Mr. Martin would have been the only one.
I've written this before, but Mr. Zimmerman played police, judge, jury and executioner to an unarmed kid, and yet, there is a mob of apologists who are up in arms over his being tried over what could be even worse than it looks, Some stupid guy with a gun who profiled, followed and confronted a kid, and when things didn't work out like they do on TV, he shot and killed him.
This should not have happened. I do not think that I should have to stop and explain myself to every weirdo that is trolling around at night stalking guys in hoodies. And neither should you.
Once again I get the feeling that most of Mr. Zimmerman's supporters would have shot his if they'd been in Mr. Martin's shoes.
In America, it is supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
In most every other country it is the other way around. One must prove their innocence.
THAT is what sets America apart from the rest of the world. THAT is why people used to want to come to America. (Not because of free handouts!) America: Where the rights of the individual come before that of "the collective." THAT is what they fear about us. THAT is why they try to destroy us...
"If someone is attacking your family and you just happen to see a gun and a phone, which one would you grab first?"
"In most every other country it is the other way around. One must prove their innocence."
Another ignorant spreading nonsense.
Comparing apples to oranges. Neither of these countries allows it's citizens to own firearms. Since Zimmerman had the right to own & carry and was a relatively law-abiding citizen, chances are that, were he a citizen of one of the countries listed in this article, he would not have had a gun and most likely would have wound up severely injured or dead. Carrying a gun in any of these countries automatically aggravates the case.
I agree with Zathrose, US laws apply to the US only.
Besides, 'Totschlag' is the equivalent of manslaughter, not murder.
The article states:
"Under Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, Zimmerman was not required to flee before using force."
That means that Martin was not required to flee, before using force.
Martin wasn't caught breaking in to Zimmerman's property, nor trying to harm Zimmerman or his family.
Zimmerman was a paranoid wanna be cop, who was following Martin around.
An azz kicking was the least of what he deserved for that.
Martin most likely felt threatened, and would have had more right to call "stand your ground", than Zimmerman(who left his house/car to pursue a guy who didn't break any laws or threatened him).
We had no new news on this case but wanted to keep in fresh in peoples minds so we decided to ask people who don't really matter in the case so we can have a front page story again.
"Neither of these countries allows it's citizens to own firearms."
Sotires - Care to elaborate on that nonsense ?
Let's face it people, there is a certain percentage of "White Men" in America who will ALWAYS agree with the murder of a "Black Man" It dates all the way back to slavery. Black Men are the most despised group of AMERICANS in America. Even with that said, they have reached the HIGHEST levels attainable in our society. In politics, arts, science, sports, education, and humanity in general. No matter what barriers they have had to go through, break down, or abolish, they have endured. Will some fail in the human quest to beat the ramped racism they face on a daily basis, YES!! Some end up in prison, and some end up like Travon Martin. But in the end, they WILL endure!!! And there's nothing a bunch of RACIST white men can do about that....... You can now collapse me! :-)
Jeff N.
Nice twisting of words and subtext. What the operator said was we do not need you to follow him when you put the conversation into its entire context. That is what you guys seem to be good at. Making false points by taking small pieces of a larger conversation and using those small statements to incorrectly posit a position. It is like you are little kids with a puzzle a little too difficult for you so you grab a puzzle piece from another puzzle and jam it into the spot you are currently working on.
@Zath
Isolationism worked out really well for both China and Japan. /sarcasm Anyone advocating for "fking the world" has some serious mental issues. America is nothing without the countries we do business with. We are not on top of the World anymore. We were placed there because we were one of the few developed countries that did not get invaded and bombed out during WWII. Everyone had to come to us to get what they needed to rebuild.
Now those same countries have rebuilt and surpassed us in someways while we sat around and fought between right vs left instead of moving the country forward technologically, educationally, in ways that matter instead of in ways that do not.
Mackman,
I don't believe in collapsing comments. So while I disagree with you...if your comment collapses i will have no part in it.
I do not understand why it is that when a "white man" sees nothing wrong with Z he is somehow racist?? IF IF IF IF ....it happened like Z said.... Then i believe he was in the right. IF IF IF he is lieing then he deserves to fry. I will pull the lever. My view on it is this. BOTH had a right to be there. Z had a right to follow up on someone he didn't know. Trayvon had a right to confront him and ask him why he was following. Z had a right to ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Trayvon had a right to tell him to go to hell. What NEITHER of them had a right to do was lay a hand on the other. IF IF IF Trayvon hit him and started banging his head into the ground then Z had a right to defend himself. You may not believe a butt whipping constitutes deadly force, but nowadays i do. You can die from head injuries like that and i have seen it first hand several times (Paramedic) .
I hope to god that if it didn't happen like Z said that the truth comes out and he dies painfully for it. If it happened like he said then he was in the right IMHO.
George Zimmerman Cocking Sound - YouTube
George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube
Go to 2:12 for the clicking sound
This does sound like a round being chambered.
This "cocking" takes place AFTER George says "Okay" to the dispatcher's, "We don't need you to do that."
Therefore, it shows that GZ did not mean it when he said "okay" but continued with his mission.
Theaudio patterns do not match, therefore your whole speculation is null and void.
That was due to the sample gun not being chambered at the same speed as George chambering his round in the tape of the dispatcher call.
This was explained in the link on Youtube above.
One blogger wrote---
yahtc, it explains the difference in the total time spread but not the differences in the amplitudes and frequencies of the ocillations.
We'll really only know one side of this tragedy
I am not a lawyer but after first hearing the "known facts' of this case -- as presented to the legal experts discussed n this article -- i pretty much came to the same conclustions. As the saying goes: "the devil's in the details' -- but putting aside the "grandstanding' and "playing to the media' and the Circus"-- from all sides -- there is really no "totally innocent party' in this matter --both men went over the line here. i nthe end this is a clear case fo " Manslaughter" -- not murder.
The article fails to note that at the point Zimmerman shot Martin--regardless of whether his actions precipitated the fight--his head was reportedly being smashed to the ground.
In right-thinking England and Germany, Zimmerman would not have been allowed to possess a weapon, may have been killed, and the actual legal outcome would have been an indictment against Martin for second-degree murder (or first degree, since he's black and it's Florida) and/or assault.
Or maybe Martin could have claimed self-defense. "This man was following me..."
This was not a justified homicide.
The victim had reason to believe the killer was overly focused on him and made him afraid. Then there was a confrontation and it is more than unlikely that Zimmerman was being reasobable and explained who he was and why he followed him and it's nothing personal. I don't know actually know what was said but I'm pretty sure I'd be looking to beat the @!$%# out of a guy that is tracking me for no reason and showing me no respect.
Zimmerman had that gun for a reason. Nothing that occurred even by his many versions make it OK to kill the victim .... except that he VERY LIKELY had run such a scenario many times in his mind and this was the opportunity to act on it.
Let's say I am completely wrong, what argument can possibly be made for ignoring advice from authority and winding up with a dead kid?
Something I should add: Regardless of what bisases may be in play, characterizing the victim as a person making him someone it is OK to kill is so far out of line it stinks.
Boy pippo, for not being there, you sure got this all figured out don't you? Douche!
Well there you are! i can hardly wait to see all of the educated comments. I know alot of people live sheltered lives. Please read up on the history of the "hooded" sweatshirt. I know most people would rather say " you mean if a person wears a hooded sweatshirt, that automatically makes him guilty". Any person can make themself more suspicious by what they wear, how they act and or certain demeanor. Was not too many years ago tattoos and long hair made a person look more suspicious. Couple that with an idiot self appointed watchman and nobody wins.
When American youth from East Coast to West, North to south wear "hoodies" then I do not see the problem here. Perhaps you old foogies need to take a good look at the youth of today. I have three daughters and they all wear Holister Hoodies. So give me a break with the Hooded Sweatshirt -- it is the style today and unfortunately a moron like Zimmerman that was told not to follow -- did what he was told not to do. As per neighbor watch programs -- you are not to be armed and certainly you never confront. This is the information that is provided by the local police that advise neighborhoods on these programs. So for all you defenders of Zimmerman get real and learn more about the youth of today and neighborhood watch.
I thought Zimmerman didn't confront...he says the kid did the confronting. All Zimmerman did was follow. It's a tragic story in any case. When you see Zimmerman, he doesn't seem to be a raving racist or a killer....or even a neighborhood watchman! He's meek and seems very introverted. I could see him being very scared when confronted by that kid who, I believe, was bigger than he is.
Agreed. BTW, this old geezer, has been wearing "Hoodies" for decades. And, as one of the original Green Berets, skilled in 'hand-to-hand, I suspect the 'cop wannabee,' Zimmerman would have had his gun stuffed up a place where the Sun doesn't shine, had he tried that action on guys like me. That goes for all the other idiots, that think they are invincible when they are 'toting.' Carrying a loaded weapon, requires not only the knowledge of how to shoot it, but the complete understanding of the responsibilities and consequences of it's use. Until you have actually been under fire, and are able to still stand, aim at a proper target, and return fire. You don't know squat. So quit acting like you do.
Ban all imported hoodies from China. Think how much the crime rate would go down. Because we all know nothing is made here in the states any longer.
I have worn hooded sweatshirts myself but of course I do not wear super oversized hoodies with the hood pulled forward to cover my head so as to conceal myself and I do not use the oversize clothing to hide shoplifted merchandise from stores. I also pull the hood down when I am inside a building or inside a car and I certainly do not wear a hoodie when it is summertime like so many of these wanna be gangsters do.
LOL...as you hide behind your keyboard you puff your chest and exaggerate you manliness to impress who...cetainly not anyone who has actually served their country.
LOL...evidently Zimmerman even as he was on the ground having his head slammed into the concrete sidewalk had the composure to fight off his attackers attempt to get his weapon and Zimmerman had the ability to fire that weapon and kill his attacker. I'd say Zimmerman did pretty good given the situation...Oh and he did not even have a Green Beret...And do not take this wrong...I have nothing but the highest respect for those in the Military especially those special forces like the green Berets,Ranger,Seals and other special ops personnel, However I have no respect for some blowhard that comes on a site and beats his chest with claims that he was a Green beret and how he would have done this and that, My guess is you would have pissed/crapped your pants and fell into submission crying as Martin was beating on you.
Harsh words for someone behind a computer. Nobody knows what they would do in any dangerous situation that requires quick action. But I believe the point is if you don't have a clue should you put yourself intentionally in a position like that? It seems more and more that is what is coming to light, not whether the two individuals share/don't share blame.
The converse of the arument is "If he didn't have a gun(false sense of security), would he have followed the guy?".
Honestly, I don't care about this case one way or the other because we don't really know what happened, as we only can have one side of the story. However, I think the hoodie argument is ridiculous. 29 year old white public accountant here and I wear hoodies all the time. Even back in the 90's when I was in high school and throughout college, all the kid wore hoodies, and this was in white suburban towns.
Tatoo, long hair, pants down, showing crack, and a hood. Break into my home looking like that and I will be very afraid. But then I would not persue this person either. Gun or not, unless he was about to hurt me......
Crystal would be like...Give it to me daddy :p
I swear its basically one person ruins it for us all. Now I can't where a hoodie anymore without being paranoid wondering who is the next crazy clown to try and shoot or subdue me. A thief was caught wearing a hoodie so now anyone wearing one is a suspect. And the silent majority condemns the hoodie out of fear.. For how long? What's next..Barbie dolls being used as weapons??
People...it was raining that night...it would make sense that if someone was wearing a hooded sweatshirt they might want to have pulled up the hood to stay a little more dry.
There is one single question here that may never be answered: did Zimmerman actually confront and/possibly threaten Martin in getting Martin to "attack"? We know from Zimmerman and the 911 tapes that Zimmerman was told he didn't have to pursue Martin. Martin being the age he was, as with nearly any teen that age with the same attitude, would have turned around at some point to confront the person following. I am wondering why the thing escalated the way it did when it would have been very simple to diffue the situation with a simple question and answer, from either party as long as one or the other was not hades bent on being an obnoxious idiot.
Zimmerman was flat out wrong to do what he did in the ongoing actions after he was told he didn't have to pursue and initiated the sequence of events. I don't agree with the murder charge and based on that I think he will walk, but, I would have gone for manslaughter or at most, negligent homicide.
See over here, we like to pound each others face in to the ground. Then, blame it on the alcohol ol .
stan - In my 20's at 5'2", 118 lbs (most people were bigger than me) I worked in LE. I was a Security Officer at the County Hospital where we dealt with all kinds of people. We had a county lockup, a psychiatric center, a drug rehab center. We dealt with violent people all the time. People looked at this petite female and thought the same thing. Yet, I could hold my own in any situation. Appearances are deceiving.
Take a look at GZ's past. He attacked an undercover police officer in the guise of helping his friend (a meek and introverted person would never do anything like that) and took anger management classes to have the charges dropped. He and his former gf had restraining orders against each other for violent domestic issues. His friends have said he has a bad temper and took it out on patrons when he was a bouncer. No-one who is meek and introverted gets a job as a bouncer. If he was so meek and introverted and if he was so afraid of TM why did he even get out of his vehicle and chase him when TM attempted to get away?
As for TM confronting or attacking him as GZ claims? It is only his word, the only other witness to how the altercation started is conveniently dead.
I wear a hoodie all the time after work. I live in Washington State and it drizzles a lot, a hoodie keeps the rain of my head and it's comfortable.
Anyway, Zimmerman was still in his car when the operator told him not to persue Martin, right? I remember watching security tapes where you see Zimmerman shining a flashlight into the club house as he searched for Martin. Either way, Zimmerman did racially profile Martin when he told the operator, "they always get away." According to some articles I read, the neighborhood had a burglery problem and the suspects were black. He may not be racist, but he definitely thought Martin was a burgler from the way he looked.
Zimmerman is acting "meek" and scared, because he doesn't want to go to prison, and ANY defense counsel will tell would tell him he needs to act like the "victim".
He has a history of outbursts/domestic violence, and he is/was on medication(which might explain why he thought he could stalk a teen around his neighborhood, while armed).
The article states:
"Under Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, Zimmerman was not required to flee before using force."
That means that Martin was not required to flee, before using force.
Martin wasn't caught breaking in to Zimmerman's property, nor trying to harm Zimmerman or his family.
Zimmerman was a paranoid wanna be cop, who was following Martin around.
An azz kicking was the least of what he deserved for that.
Martin most likely felt threatened, and would have had more right to call "stand your ground", than Zimmerman(who left his house/car to pursue a guy who didn't break any laws or threatened him).
@ Crystal:
Martin never even got on Zimmerman's property, did Zimmerman see him break any laws(except maybe walking while black).
Martin had every right to feel threatened, after being stalked.
I think it is important for members of the public to keep thier emotions in check. Since so little evidence exists for this case the truth is we may never get the whole story.
Think of it this way, for the most part we have only Zimmerman's story to work with. Don't forget Zimmerman has potential reason to lie (not saying he is just that his story should be corroborated if possible.) Facts are Zimmerman had to be acting lawfully when he acted to defend himself or he can't use that defense. Based on testimony from Martins girlfriend seconds before the connection was lost she heard someone (not Martin) say "What are you doing here?" Now bear she also has reason to lie, to see the man that killed Martin go to prison. But her testimony can't be discounted at this juncture.
Either way it is possible (and I suspect also likely) that Zimmerman confronted Martin first. The question this raises is where was Zimmerman's weapon at this time? Facts are Florida law specifically state that if you threaten someone with a weapon you are comminting a crime.
It seems clear from Zimmerman's conversation with 911 that he intended to prevent Martin from getting away. If Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin until the police arrived then he would have been breaking the law, as he did not have reasonable suspicion to do so. Being a young black man or wearing a hoodies does not count as reasonable suspicion.
Since we can't get Trevon Martin's story we can't get the other half of the picture. It is wholely possible Martin was the one defending himself from a percieved threat (an unknown man with a gun.
Watch out, we've got a badass over here!
LOL I remember from training never to bring fists to a gun fight... Too many movies?
He didn't seem very meek and introverted when he said, "this *@%$@#$@# isn't going to get away". I'm guessing that if he was meek and introverted, he would not have been doing the neighborhood watch thing. Lots of killers don't seem to be killers. I'm guessing that if we could actually look at people and say, "He's a killer", lots of killings would be prevented. If only you were around to quickly classify Holmes in Aurora... lives would have been spared!
KeepinItReal-2397425
He didn't seem very meek and introverted when he said, "this *@%$@#$@# isn't going to get away"
Please provide a link to actual transcripts or recordings where he spoke THOSE exact words. Just in case you were unable to find it.
Zimmerman: "These a**holes, they always get away. When you come in go straight to the left ... when you pass the clubhouse ..."
I generally agree with the rest of your comment.
The only people making a big deal about the hoodie are those people trying to make GZ look guilty by playing the "race card". GZ did not make a big deal about the hoodie in his conversation with 911. He said in giving a description of the person who was acting suspicious.
Given NBC's bias against Zimmerman, this article is meaningless drivel...just preach'n to the choir.
That's why the picture of a 13 year old Martin not the 17 year old gangster thug.
Blame the priest for the picture .
It must be time to stir up black to white hatred again. In England you can't even own a small handgun. In China - well it is a so-called Communist State where the government does as it pleases. In America we have a right to self defense and a trial by a group of our peers.
Yep. Gotta prove you acted in self defense, though. Don't think that's going to be possible in Zimmerman's case. Already the evidence is stacked against him. And, there's that sticky little issue of deadly force that gets involved with a standard self defense claim. Can't get made because you got punched in the nose by someone you were following without cause, and then shoot and kill them.
From the article, it sounds like other countries have a more clear headed approach to this crime.
Also...Had Zimmerman been walking home after shopping at Target and been attacked by a teen wearing anything for no appearant reason, the Stand your Ground Law would apply. However thats not at all what happened. Zimmerman clearly provoked and Trayvon had no idea he was acting as "Security". Other countries can see it, most of us here can see it. I really wonder at the persistence of a portion of our public to deny Zimmermans guilt. What could be your reasoning and motive?
Bill H-1430012
What bias against Zimmerman? Everything he claims is reported the way he says it. To point out that it will always be one side of the story is not a biased view. To express the opinion that the Killer was in the wrong based on what we are told, even by the killer, is opinion not generated by any bias.
For example, simply based on only two facts of which there is no argument, he was advised not to persue, and he had the gun that killed an innocent person. Based on those FACTS, my opinion is that he is guilty. You can have your opinion that I'm sure you tell yourself is unbiased. There is no biase in the reporting. Zimmerman isn't saying he didn't shoot the Kid.
with all the compassion and intelligence in the world...what ever happened to innocent to proven guilty...i am not saying zimmerman is innocent by no means...but i think he is being unjustly condemned...we and i mean we all don't know the real truth...the media kindda manipulates stories to sell themselves...look at the pictures of a innocent boy...but then theres other pics of him looking all gansta like,flip off the camera. this should never be about black and white unless you are sure...and shouldnt be about popular belief of the black community...just the real facts of the case...no more no less...i feel for the parents of trevon...i have a son...i'm sure its not easy to bury your son... 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Maybe not, but two Wrights made an airplane.
(That's punny)
We've been given the facts, over and over. Zimmerman suspected the kid (profiled)and followed. The kid did not know Zimmerman was "acting as security". He told the girl on the phone he was scared by this crazy looking man following him. The girl says run. He runs alittle, then says I am going to walk fast. Zimmerman continued to pursue. Zimmerman is guilty. Trayvon tried to stand his ground when confronted after first trying to run away.
That "gangsta" picture wasn't even of Trayvon. Does that change your perspective at all...knowing that now?
Read Trayvon's tweets, then check your perspective.
The Gunslingers of America make me sick. They are disgusting, vile, evil, rotten, no good human beings and God has nothing but contempt for EVERY single one of their evil souls.
Gunslingers? You mean gang bangers.. the ones the hold the gun sideways cause thats the way it came in the box? Or law breakers?
Or are you talking about anyone that owns/carries a firearm?
So you are including military, police, law abiding citizens, law breaking citizens, republicans, democrats. You see where this is going. You throw out a general word and it makes no sense.
Since you've capitalized their name they must be an organization. Point me to their website. I may want to join.
Let's see, I own a rifle 30-06, 2 really antique weapons both not in a firing condition, and a 9mm automatic pistol. I killed many men in combat situations. I have never shot anybody in my own country under any condition. Even while doing my job while in the Military, I never once considered myself a Gunslinger. That's an interesting viewpoint so what am or was I?
Here Denver Bill 2.
http://snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3351580
Local 566 Chapter.
While this is just a forum, it is proof that a group by this name exists. Not that it is in the context that John Penn is portraying them. It's also highly unlikely you would gain membership.
They are actually called United Gunslingers of America.
Remember, we have groups and organisations for everything imaginable.
Actually that was just an advertisement selling T-Shirts with United Gunslingers of America on them, The website was Snipers Hide
As I stated, it was just a forum.
The Forum was from a group Snipers Hide and they were selling T-Shirts that said United Gunslingers of America...Those T-Shirts are not from a group called United Gunslingers of America, They are just T-Shirts with a made up saying on them.
Anyone jumping out of vehicles attempting to confront and subdue another human being is a threat to society .
Since that has absolutely nothing to do with this case I must conclude you're talking about the Police.
Openwide
If you find somebody who did that, let us know.
My left nut told my right that George is a pu55y .
Let me rephrase...George jumping out of a vehicle attempting to confront and subdue Trayvon is a threat to society .
Really? That's the story you're going with? May be good for a fiction novel or movie but we're talking about actual events here.
Seems to be alot of mitigating circumstances being brought into question here!! I need the three most important questions answered as a matter of fact to guide my decision here! 1) Did TVM infact,attack John Smith wether he had his weapon out or not??? Stupid and wreckless thing as well as his state of mind being such if he did haveing seen the weapon! Dont you think? But, reguardless, shows self defense was necessary! 2) Before the altercation, did john Smith, infact, Identify himself as a crime watch community agent? 3)Did John Smith, in fact, Fire the weapon or shoot the attacker in the process of the attack, or as the attacker was coming at him,1st or 2nd time if more than once? Or did he infact fire as the attacker released him, or was walking away , eliminating the clear and present danger claim? I think proof on these issues will make the case! Last i heard, the eyewitness accounts were not consistant! Thats a problem! Yes? Whitness credibility issue? Sounds like it! Well, good luck with that! Hope they come clean with facts and hope technical forensics can connect enough dots!! Wheres the camara when you need one? Neighbor hood watch programs should require wireless dash cams like in police crusers! Had there been one, he probly would not have attacked providing Smith maintained position. And if he still, did, well, case solved!
Bill, I have had this thought, Treyvon was a Teen. He thought and acted like a Teen. He may have noticed Zimmerman following him and did as he had seen on TV, Try to loose the tail. It appears that Zimm jumped him in someones backyard. I also think that Zimm had a round in the chamber to get it off that fast.
Correct
Correct
It appears that he did
Evidence suggests that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman
I would hope so, I do not know anyone who carries a weapon without a round in the chamber, If you are carrying a revolver there is a round in all the chambers and if you are carrying a semiautomatic pistol them you have a round in the chamber and a full magazine, Only on TV and in the movies do you see people constantly racking the slide back to chamber a round...hint...Movies and TV do it for dramatization...Real life dictates that there is a round in the chamber.
Yea that's not what we need. More camera's on the street and on individuals as they stalk and invaded peoples privacy isn't a bright idea. Read the definition of stalking please. All is required is a call to the cops or go about your business. And what evidence proves Trayvon punched him first?
You bring up a good point. The witnesses have changed or modified their stories which always then brings those statements into question especially when it goes from one extrme (ie, he did it) to the other extreme (no, I meant the other one did it).
A changing statement from a "witness" tosses that witness out as credible, especially when it comes to high profile cases like this one.
Irrelevant. Anyone can follow anyone at any time, as long as they are both allowed to be where they are, and ask them a question.
Lost...the other question Idon't htin I have seen answered is if the neighborhood watch rules even allowed a weapon to be carried (most do not allow it). If not, that is going to be a negative factor for Zimmerman regardless if he had a round chambered or not but I still don't think it would result in a murder conviction.
Lynn
I dont think neighborhood watch rules will be a factor as FL law trumps any neighborhood watch rules, and besides that, there is no way to prove that GZ was on watch that night, whether he was or not, there is no way to prove it.
They claim he wasn't on watch bu he was doing his duty. and as for cops we all know they are technically never off duty and can be reprimanded for not coming to the aid of an individual in distress. That can be said for most government and/or on-call workers. And no George definitely did not identify himself as anyone, according to his own numerous varying stories.
Yes, just damn the harassment, stalking, and other nuisance laws available to stop that type of activity.
@arguesforsport
Not irrelevant. It's night and some guy is following you. You start walking faster and so does he. I doubt Martin thought, "Oh, this guy probably just wants to talk." Zimmerman should have identified himself. If a detective or undercover cop came up to me and just started asking questions without identifying themselves first, I'd become defensive and maybe turn aggressive depending on the situation.
Zimmerman had the opportunity to identify himself, according to his own testimony in interviews and the re-enactment. Zimmerman CHOSE not to identify himself. One has to wonder why. Detective Serino brought this very salient point up several times, and Zimmerman was unable to give an answer as to why he replied, "I don't have a problem" in a confrontation attitude, instead of identifying himself.
kappa_man_stew
Please cite the SPECIFICS in FL LAW to support harassment (which is part of the stalking law in FL), Stalking and "nuisance" laws you feel George broke in the state of FLORIDA. Not what your laws are, unless you are in Sanford FL, but the laws that were on the books of Feb 26, 2012.
I'll even help you out: FL Statute 784.048. We can discard sections 3-7 as they just don't apply so that leaves:
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Note the word AND which means it REQUIRES all parts not just one or two but ALL parts. A single instance of following does not meet the repeated criteria.
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
He his actions in CONTEXT of the moment involved served a legitimate purpose... Trayvon was seen as a suspicious person by George... turned out he was wrong but not at the time, so that eliminates harassment.
and obviously this was not a virtual/cyber situation.
so get back to us when you have citations to actual crimes in Sanford Florida of "nuisance" or other illegal actions prior to the street fight.
OpenwidebBI44
Bravo bravo... only problem is Neighborhood Watch is NOT a police function or in any way shape or form a LEO or Peace Officer... FL has VERY SPECIFIC definitions and segregates the differing types of peace officers. Regular Police officers, including state, county and local PD and sheriffs. Corrections officers... only having arrest powers over escaped prisoners, and Security guards.... aka rent a cops think Brinks and campus police. George was NONE of those and was not even "deputized" by any of those... yes FL has statutes on who can deputize a civilian and what authority they are granted. So even IF George were "on duty" he broke no LAWS by having a firearm as he had a CCW permit issued by the state of FL.
OK he didn't break the law as you saw proudly pointed out trust. I can stand you and all of these loop holes you like to use for your own gain. Considering the fact that in George's NW handbook it clearly states he is not suppose to patrol with a weapon. This all plays back to his mindset and how many rules and regulations he would abide by and follow. Seems to me is he was a rule breaker and renegade to a certain extent. And this isn't that hard to fathom . Thank you
I don't abdicate my duty to examine laws. I am paid to be thorough. Using just your cherry picked statues
In law "repeatedly" is synonymous with continuously. Stalking can occur during one incidence
And in what way can getting out of the safety of a vehicle, armed with a loaded handgun, with intent to question/accost/ and initiate a seizure (stopping a person who was minding his business is a seizure by law) of a Trayvon Martin walking on a walkway, not being seen committing a crime, leaving the scene of a crime, having anyone yelling "stop" or "halt", or acting furtively not constitute a "course of conduct"?
What legitimate purpose does George Zimmerman have in interrupting a person exercising their 4th Amendment Constitutional right:
You know let's get into this. Justifiable use of Force including deadly force has a higher threshold than I thought.
Zimmerman has a very high hurdle to meet. He has to prove he had exhausted all reasonable attempts to disengage.
and you did dome interesting cherry picking of of section 776.041
You left out
Your boy is cooked
kappa_man_stew
Lets start with the so called cherry picking.. you asked for SPECIFIC references. I provided very specific references and also provided links to the entire law statute for anyone to review completely at their leisure.
Repeatedly means more than once... be it in a law or standard English dictionary.
The hurdle he has to meet is the amount of force he used... the fact that he was on the bottom and there are witnesses to that effect as well as there was an extended period of physical altercation would demonstrate that George did not simply use his firearm as a first choice. I agree it may end up being a challenge... presuming the 776 hearing doesn't find him immune.
And can you provide EVIDENCE that was Georges INTENT or in fact what George DID? There are no laws about exiting ones vehicle.... unless you can provide a citation of some weird statute in Florida... really would not be surprised lol.
All we KNOW is that George exited to observe what Trayvon was up to. As best we can tell George did not deliberately close the distance with Trayvon, only that the ended up near the T at the same time. Even the prosecutions own witness states there is NO EVIDENCE as to who started the confrontation and you are CLAIMING that George in some way hindered Trayvon from going about his business but you have NOT shown any proof or evidence beyond speculation.
As far as a threat... you will have to prove that George did not have a legitimate purpose... observing a stranger in the area that had suffered multiple crimes. Trayvon fit the general description of those committing the crimes.. young Black males. STUFF your race card before you even throw it. FACT is young Black males were observed and in some cases caught in the act of burglary, theft, possession of stolen goods and home invasion in the area.
There is no EVIDENCE that George displayed his gun until Trayvon had him on the ground after delivering some form of battery to George. Trayvon was in fact an active participant in the street fight with at least two or more adult witnesses.
Not my boy. Just a Concerned citizen who got in over his head.
If we are claiming people though yours is DEAD. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
From the Merriam- Webster dictionary
From the Free Legal Dictionary
Now
Not according to Section 776.041 of the Florida Statute
You also seem to want to ignore Florida law
This is ridiculous
I just stated What he (George Zimmerman) did!! Do you deny that George Zimmerman got out of the relative safety of his Sport Utility Vehicle? Do you deny that he was armed?? Do you deny that George Zimmerman was aware that he was armed? Do you deny that George Zimmerman willfully disregarded the admonition of the dispatcher to not follow Trayvon Martin? Do you deny that he followed Trayvon Martin?
If you can't deny any of this my case against Zimmerman is strong.
What Trayvon martin "was up to" was walking down the walkway, minding his business, with a can of Arizona Iced Tea and a bag of Skittles, talking to a female on a cell phone. Trayvon Martin did not have anyone chasing him yelling "stop" or "halt". Trayvon Martin was not seen hurrying for the vicinity of the 7-11. Trayvon Martin was not seen in the commission of a property crime. Trayvon Martin was not seen harassing anyone.
Trayvon Martin did have a 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
What are you advocating a police state??
Unfortunately for you that is not justification for stopping random African American males who are not seen to be involved in crimes. And your rant is racist.
George Zimmerman knew he had a gun on him when he exited his vehicle. with this knowledge he had many alternative means to approach Trayvon Martin available to him.
The problem is that he crossed the line from concerned citizen into vigilante and yes Trayvon Martin is dead, but George Zimmerman has a big bulls eye on him now too.
Puts a new spin on the term "freedom ain't free" doesn't it?
Repeated or continuous, they both mean more than once. The evidence of GZ's intent comes from GZ's own mouth, his intent was to follow the person he was suspicious of, no laws broken. And I believe the 4th admendment deals with an individual and the government not another individual.
kappa your argument is null and void.
Because you say so without linking countering facts or law?
Your funny.
(1) read your own definitions (2) listen to GZ's statements to SPD (3) read the 4th amendment
kappa_man_stew
I took one out and put it next. Not denying any of the above. Are you claiming ANY of those were/are against the law? Remember George has a CCW permit issued by the state of Florida.
big word "admonition" for advice. Even the prosecution states it was only advice. Also you seem to forget that the advice was AFTER George had been following for a period of time and AFTER he had exited the vehicle as you observed above. You also have no EVIDENCE that he continued to FOLLOW after receiving the ADVICE. The recording has George losing sight of Trayvon, spending almost two minutes in conversation with the dispatcher discussing where Trayvon may have gone, where George might meet up with police and a request they contact him once they arrive in the area. Advising someone not to do something AFTER the fact does not make it possible to undo what has been done.
We know all of that NOW. Hind sight is 20/20 or in this case about 20/40. Trayvon was observed by George acting in what HE felt was a suspicious manner. What exactly constitutes suspicious we are not sure. We NOW know Trayvon was on the phone hands free but if Trayvon was an animated phone talker he would look possibly hyped up or agitated. YOU need to remember the CONTEXT of things. The community was suffering from numerous incidents the most recent 2 weeks prior. NO we don't live in a police state. However when crime is rampant people tend to be hyper sensitive to strangers in the area. George was/is not a police officer and did not infringe on Trayvons 4th Amendment right. Trayvon was in a public place so did not have any expectation to privacy and George had as much right to be there as Trayvon. Perhaps you would care to address Trayvons response of battering George? Do you feel if you are in the same area as someone else and they don't like what you are doing, without touching them or another person, you should be physically touched or battered?
George did not stop anyone as far as we know. Cite your EVIDENCE that George physically hindered Trayvons progress. Your RACE CARD is void. Been used too many times. The FACT that crimes were being committed by young Black males in RTL is DOCUMENTED FACT. Not a rant. A simple statement of FACT. No different than stating Sickle Cell is a predominately Black disease. No different than stating there are 3 gangs in the Sanford area that have GOON in their gang name and that all but one member of those 3 gangs is Black. Now I guess if you want to push things you can complain to those 3 gangs that they are being racist for only having ONE token White member. I suggest you take that race card and play it some place that the "reverends" have fired up for you because it doesn't play here. Actually it just moved the value of your comments waaaaay down. If you don't like the fact that young Black males are in fact committing rough 50% of ALL crime then do something about it instead of playing politics with your revoked race card.
Oh and just how is what George unfortunate for me specifically? I'm not the one on trial nor am I the one in a grave.
What EVIDENCE do you have that George approached Trayvon? The most we KNOW is that the two of them met at the T and a street fight was the result. The result of that street fight was tragic in that a life was lost. Fortunately it was one of the participants in that street fight, for a change, rather than a 3rd party who wasn't even aware there was something happening.
Cite evidence of crossing the line to vigilante. Simply because he defended himself and the one who survived is not evidence of vigilantism. Explain your bulls eye comment? Are you referring to STREET justice? Do you feel that no matter the outcome of the hearing/trial George or the community are in danger?
What new spin? you mean a twist, referring to your bulls eye comment? Don't confuse this situation with military service which is the reference you are attempting to invoke. I put in my 6 and half years service and continue to pay the price every day. TVM.
Still using same old photo and using examples from countries that are anti-firearms anyway. NBC have you no shame?
The article, knuclehead , is to demonstrate what how other countries would treat this crime. Most are very civilized and apparently they have it right.
In a situation where a person has punched me,breaking my nose and knocking me to the ground and that subject then is on top of me slamming my head into the concrete sidewalk and that person sees that I am carrying a concealed weapon he then says to me you are dead and makes an effort to grab my weapon then the only "Civilized" thing to do is to defend my life and shoot him before he can shoot me.
I believe in the justice system in this country and it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6
What makes the photo "old"...that it's been used over and over and become iconic or that you are trying to say that it misrepresents Martin's age at t6he time it was taken? How old do you think Martin is in that photo? Do you even know? Martin had barely turned 17 when he was killed. Do you think the photo shows a younger person?
Your complaint I believe is that the media , especially NBC, has been trying to show Martin as a "child" to get sympathy for his side. The fact is Martin was a child....by law and by reality.
You might want to check out the photos on this site that show how desperately folks were trying to make Martin look like a thug and older at the time of his death here: http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/240369-facts-trayvon-martin-investigation-part-2-a.html
The bottom two pictures of course are not Martin at all, but hey why let facts get in the way of a really good hate hard on, eh?
And you want to talk about shame?
Lost
Those are the words of the perpetrator. There are no witnesses to whom attacked who. There are no witnesses to TM having seen the gun and saying "now you are dead". You are taking GZ's word as the absolute truth and I can assure you that it isn't. He can say whatever he wants since he killed the only person that could dispute any of his testimony. It is amazing how people complain that GZ is innocent until proven guilty, yet the same people have TM being guilty from the moment that GZ saw him.
The thing here is that Zimmerman said he killed Trayvon - he admitted to murdering him - so he is guilty of a crime. He killed an innocent teenager. What is in dispute here is whether he did it in self-defence. What is in dispute is whether the STG law applies here - which personally I dont know how a state could pass a law like that. Yes here in Canada (and we are known for being easy on crime) he would have been charged with second degree murder, he would have been arrested right on the spot. There would have been no bond for him he would have stayed there until the jury decided if he was guilty or not guilty (not innocent). And all the cops needed to arrest him was *probably cause* and that would have been the dead body laying on the grass and Zimmerman admitting to killing him. In any murder case should they bond him out and he goes out and kills someone else while he is on bond would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. Casey Anthony stayed in prison until proven not guilty. And murder charge here - you dont get out until and if a jury says you will. We try not to turn the tables and make the victim look guilty which has been going on since Day 1. We dont have the media coverage here and we dont have cameras in the court. As far as I am concerned with the lying to the courts (no smart person does that) and the fact that he has given 5 different accounts of what happened that night why should I just take his word for it that he was in fear for his life so he had to shoot him. He is a proclaimed liar and his wife is too - he embezzled money out of an account that was put up for his legal fees - yep a really upstanding citizen he is. And I agree with Donna P. Has anyone ever thought that he killed him so as there was no way Trayvon could tell his story afterall Trayvon might have had his own version of what went down and Zimmerman couldnt allow that to happen. So what we do know is that Zimmerman is in fact guilty of murder - he is not a completely innocent person - he killed a boy and will have to live with that the rest of his life - what we are disputing here is whether he did it in self-defence by definition of the SYG law. A 17 year old boy's future has been cut off before it even started and for what - cause Zimmerman thought he looked like he was up to no good. At that time Trayvon has done absolutely nothing to give Zimmerman this idea. Oh yeah he was wearing a hoodie because it was raining out and was talking to girlfriend on the phone - what an awful kid. He jumped to that conclusion all by himself. All I want to see is this case be over so Trayvon can rest in peace at long last. But sadly I dont think we will ever have the real truth about what happened that day.
SHar-2704637
NO he only admitted to killing him... a homicide... the question is was it justified or not and likely not "murder" but a lesser degree of manslaughter.
Again not until he goes to court
who at some point committed the crime of battery as evidenced by Georges injuries, no matter how minor.
Well the law as written is FLAWED but the intent was to codify common law of Self Defense so those who exercised that right would not have to face time in jail and PROVE their innocence... In the USA the law is innocent until PROVEN guilty but some jurisdictions were turning the law around and arresting people until they could prove they were innocent.
Great for Canada... no offense... However this incident happened on Sanford Florida USA where the laws of Florida apply not those of anywhere else on the planet.
So Canada does not have bond for anyone arrested and it is a presumption of GUILT before a jury decides otherwise? I honestly don't know is why I ask.
Again we are discussing an incident in Florida not elsewhere. Actually both of the cases you refer to happened there. Quite honestly a lot of this "media" attention is because the "media" is choosing to cover it due to their initial claims that it was a racial crime and now they have to divert attention from their error... that and it is an election year down here.
OK first I don't think Trayvon will rest any differently no matter the outcome of this case. But what is YOUR stance IF the charges are dismissed or he is found not guilty? Or are you another one who feels that the only justice is if George is sent to prison? Guilty of breaking the law or not.
Yes the picture the media keeps showing of TM is an icon, an icon to how the media lies and manipulates to sensationalize a story causing racial strife where there should be none.
And when did African Americans delegate the choice of when to be outraged to you prey tell? The Sanford, Florida Police Department tried to do the old cover up that police departments have done to us around the country. The time to oppose this treatment was yesterday.
kappa_man_stew
WHY do you ATTEMPT to perpetuate that MYTH. SPD was still investigating and taking statements as late as March 18. Ten days after the Martins went crying to the "reverends" Tracy Martin declined to provide access to Trayvons cell phone or the billing statement forcing SPD to delay that part of the investigation. The Martins FAILED to notify the SPD of a potential witness in "deedee".
Please provide EVIDENCE that SPD made any effort to cover anything up. Please provide evidence that the investigation had ceased prior to the lead detective attempting to file charges in mid March. Are you trying to use the fact that SPD was prevented by Statute 776 from arresting George until they could reasonable prove that it was not self defense? Are you forgetting that the local DA said don't hold or charge George on Feb 27, 2012.
Perhaps you are just running your mouth to attempt to impress someone in that you don't like police or SPD specifically for some reason? That claim is likely more valid than yours that SPD attempted to cover anything up. FDLE and the FBI came behind SPD and other than witnesses changing their statements, Georges "cousin" with her claims of racism molestation, and "deedee" SPD had all the information that FDLE and the FBI came up with. considering "deedee" was not immediately identified due to TRACY MARTIN declining key information I think even you have to admit SPD did a thorough investigation in the 10 days after the shooting and were still working on it after the "reverends" made it about RACE.
Oh I don't know, maybe because of this
Or maybe this
Or this
Or this
Now as far as this comment
"running my mouth"?
I'm posting on an internet blog site.
Specious, speculative and a deflection from the issues. The "reasoning" is also rather circular.
One officer wanted to arrest and detain George Zimmerman. He was told not to. this is in keeping with another recent similar incident
The investigation had halted. Without the agitation provided by "The Reverends" the issue of Trayvon Martin's murder would not have been thoroughly investigated, it would have been "pushed under the rug" as is the murders of many African Americans killed by vigilante law enforcement and others every year. That is not a anti law enforcement issue. It is an call for effective and fair law enforcing.
kappa_man_stew,
Good post...
The investigation had STALLED for lack of cooperation from the Martins. Contrary to the CSI Miami episodes a complete murder investigation cannot be completed in 40 minutes or an hour including commercials. Nor can it be completed in a day. Especially when there are so many details and witnesses that are being less than cooperative. the "dreaming" team can give you the specs on the various witnesses... like the lady who needs contacts or glasses and kept changing her story about how many people she saw. The same woman who complained about police declining to allow her to walk them into the middle of the scene of the shooting and then chose to do several TV interviews before allowing police to reinterview her. That the police had to follow legal procedure to obtain a warrant to obtain information from Trayvons phone or the fact that due to the Martins and Crump FAILED to inform police of the potential witness "deedee" and declined to allow her to give a statement directly to law enforcement for several weeks. That several witnesses changed their recollection of events after the fact and instead of contacting police went to the media once the story made the news. BTW where was Tracy that night? He says he saw Trayvon between 8 and 8:30 on Feb 26, 2012. Rather amazing considering that Trayvon was pronounced DEAD at 7:30. Rather amazing that at 8:00 the back yard of where he was staying was full of emergency responders with bright blue lights running. Considering that this a gated community I'm not sure how Tracy could miss all that activity with only two points of access if he was truly there and saw his son at between 8 and 8:30. In all honesty Tracy Martin is damned lucky there is so much publicity or he would be in jail for obstructing the investigation.
SPD was doing what they could with the information they were provided and the (lack of) cooperation they were receiving from the Martins and the witnesses. Go back to watching your CSI episodes and their make believe capabilities. My favorite is the magic of taking a partial fingerprint and matching it in just a couple hours. The tech exists... they can do a compare of 50,000 prints per hour. the normal person had ten prints and there are over 3,000,000 prints from just those in prison. That means over 300 hours just to clear CURRENT prisoners per print.
Care to cite your source? Is that the same source that claims the majority of Blacks are killed by Whites each year?
Good lets do that. Problem is that the numbers show that a disproportionate number of Blacks are involved in criminal activity. Especially murder. That includes both killing and being killed. Lets start with the LEADING causes of what leads to the killings.. drugs, gangs or both. Lets set a goal of reducing just THOSE numbers by half. That would reduce the number of Black deaths and killers by almost 2600 a year. There would be other larger benefits but lets solve just that small number and we would be making huge progress. That would place Black representation closer to their percentage in the US population when it comes to crime and homicides. Again STUFF it with the "Trust" is being racist for stating the real FACTS. Like it or not the numbers are the reality of life in the USA.
Oh and funny thing... GEORGE was one of the individuals PRESSING for reforms at SPD and calling on the city and Chief of Police to get their chit together. But the "dreaming" team can't admit to that because that would take away from their claims that George was an evil racist child hunter.
1) A disproportionate amount of arrests come from one demographic, African Americans
2) The things that you propose to be the leading causes of malady for the African Americans (drugs, gangs) are nothing more than symptoms, not causation of the problems of African Americans. There is much peer reviewed writings on causes and cures written by Sociologists, Psychologists, Economists, Political Scientists, Historians and other academics. The researchers in these disciplines have concluded that the problems in America that people of African descent face are caused by outside factors that are not the fault of the individuals themselves.
Numbers can be distorted, manipulated, or used out of context. False results can be taken out of raw statistics.
Let's find a way to end employment discrimination, okay?
Let's find a way to end overcrowding in the areas where African Americans are dumped, okay?
Let's find a way to have equal services that the more affluent areas of cities and towns receive, okay?
Let's find a way to get inner city schools the same amount and quality of supplies that the more affluent areas of towns and cities get, okay?
Let's find a way to end gestapo police practices which are counterproductive in that they alienate potential community allies by their crassness and brutality, okay?
Let's find a way to have school taught that doesn't make the minority (especially African American) child feel like a historical bystander by not teaching them their societal historical contribution like they teach the European contribution, okay? People who are made to feel they are worthless and valueless don't value others either.
A contextualized use of numbers will get proper results
Link it. I couldn't find any indication of that from mainstream news organization.
The detective on the scene did not believe Zimmerman and wanted to arrest him on the spot.
It is not the fault of the potential witness that she was not interviewed by police in a timely manner. She went to the news when she felt that what she believed to be relevant information, her testimony, was being ignored by the Sanford Police Department.
And the relevance of this non issue that will not be allowed in court is?
Because of the level of disrespect that we receive it doesn't make the news but it happens all too often
A sampling
Forget Amadou Diallo? Forty one bullets? Abner Louiema? Sodomized with a broomstick by New York City Police?
The reasons for the Cincinnati riots
The Miami Riots?
And what even professional African Americans face
Your myopic view of race and racial problems is the problem.
documented in the three different document releases 183 pages, 284, and 79 pages. all it takes is wading through all the reports.
The detective on the scene did not believe Zimmerman and wanted to arrest him on the spot.
Unlike NCIS the "Gut" factor is not a legal reason to arrest someone. Also 776 specifically states that they have to PROVE it wasn't self defense.. I've been down that line so many times I'm not sure if it was with you or any of 100 others who weren't aware or refuse to admit it is in the law. "(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." They had to have probable cause... that's more than just I don't like their story.
That fact is debatable. She was interviewed that night/morning. She wasn't happy for whatever reason. She declined to come to the station and failed to return calls to arrange a time convenient to HER to be further interviewed. Again it's in the released documents.
while not going to criminal court it is part of the court of public opinion. LEGALLY it is giving false information though COULD be excused due to stress... after all his son was only missing as far as he was concerned... or did he already suspect his son was in custody or worse? If this somehow gets to CIVIL court it just might make it into the record.
sorry doesn't fly. you can't just throw a claim out there any more than I can. would of could of should of... I'm not asking for news reports unless they are 20/20, sixty minutes or RAND type. DOJ stats for differing years exist. They also offer by types and trends. Find one that shows your claims. CDC has other numbers. It is the internet. YOU made a claim. Cite a valid source not some site that has an agenda or leaning. FOOD INC would not be a valid source and wiki is not so solid but links associated to them might be reasonable.
YOUR belief that every White person OWES you something you haven't EARNED is the problem. Your perception that "the man" is out to get you is the problem. Drugs and gangs ARE the problem and a LEADING cause of young male deaths. You can't blame "the man" or whites for the FACT that 93% of all Black homicides are committed by Blacks. You can't blame the FACT that Black gangs sell drugs and prey on Blacks is the fault of "the man" or Whites. You could TRY to blame the fact that half of all crime committed by Blacks is somehow the Whites fault but I have yet to hear of someone putting a gun to a Blacks head and telling them to deal drugs, use drugs, kill a black person, or even run from police when they haven't done something. I've even heard the argument that Whites need to leave Blacks to their own "justice" because Whites don't understand their culture... I'm TIRED of hearing about this EQUAL but SPECIAL treatment. I would hope that most Blacks would be tired of it as well.
One doesn't get PROSECUTED if they didn't do it. The FACT that a disproportionate number of crimes are COMMITTED by Blacks is a leading cause of their arrests.
Argue all the PC, psychology, socieconnomic mumbo jumbo you like. FACT is that 62% of ALL Black deaths involve Drugs, Gangs or BOTH. That sounds like a CAUSE not a symptom. I can't do any thing to FIX that issue. WE, the USA, have identified a leading cause of highway deaths and addressed it... DUI. This looks like a very identified problem. Whether you call it a social issue or a causal issue the end result is that 62% of homicides in the Black demographic involve drugs and gangs. Calling it something else doesn't make it any less deadly.
Agreed. Mine come from DOJ. They use raw data and report on it over long periods of time. It is difficult to distort the fact that a dead body is dead, what race they are and the race of the convicted killer. It is also difficult to distort the facts of the death... shot by who and why. Perhaps in a few individual cases but not in the thousands of homicides annualy.
Which one? Race, age, gender, quota, token hiring? I agree that there are issues but I am not in a position to change that. I don't have hire/fire authority, just another worker bee. Being unemployed is not a reason to kill someone. If one doesn't have an income then how can they afford drugs?
Let's find a way to end overcrowding in the areas where African Americans are dumped, okay?
Dumped? Overcrowding? Are you telling me that we should dictate where someone lives? I've heard the argument, from Blacks, that we need to keep Blacks in the same area so they can be around their own culture where they are best understood in the schools by their own people. Welfare is a huge issue. It encourages single motherhood rather than families. That a woman has 5 children by 5 different men is a personal decision... do you really want someone stepping into that quagmire? Maybe you would like to sterilize a woman after she has had more than 2 children by two different fathers... and sterilize a man if he has fathered more than two children by two different women? I can hear the outcry before you respond. I'm a firm believer in keeping government OUT OF THE BEDROOM.
Equal services? I don't know about you but most cities I've been in public transportation AVOIDS affluent areas and shuns as best they can to have other "services" in their area. Specify what services you would like to have where. Somehow having a welfare office or soup kitchen in Beverly Hills just doesn't seem to make sense. Nor does having a homeless shelter there.
Let's find a way to get inner city schools the same amount and quality of supplies that the more affluent areas of towns and cities get, okay?
Baltimore comes to mind but lets look at how MOST schools are funded. Property tax. Most states have reduced or eliminated distributing funds from the state to local schools in these tight budget times. I'm all for per student spending within say a county. I'm also for equal pay for rural vs urban teachers. problem is that inner city has a higher ratio of students per teacher.
Good luck on that. People tend to treat others as they have been treated. That is a two way vicious circle. Interestingly people who are shot by cops tend to be shot by those of their own race. just like the rest of the population. Unfortunately criminals aren't polite and cops tend to deal with criminals more than dealing with friendly average citizens. It also doesn't help that people don't want to "snitch" so the criminals become brazen.
Let's find a way to have school taught that doesn't make the minority (especially African American) child feel like a historical bystander by not teaching them their societal historical contribution like they teach the European contribution, okay? People who are made to feel they are worthless and valueless don't value others either.
History is what it is. Some of it very ugly. At what age do you want any child to become aware of how Africans treated each other? That their forebears were raped, hung, gutted, mutilated? That families were mere chattel? I was taught as a child some of the contributions of Blacks, probably not all. Race was not emphasized so much as the contribution. George Washington Carver is the one who stands out in my mind. Something that also needs taught is that not all Whites have a family history of owning slaves. I'm so tired of being accused of that involvement it is sickening. While my Irish ancestors weren't treated any better than Blacks I don't hold a grudge over what happened before I was born and don't feel any sense of entitlement other than what I've earned between my work and military service.
is that a fancy way of quoting Mark Twain? "Lies damned lies and statistics"
You've brought up MANY social issues. They don't change the current FACTS that Blacks and Whites are killing and being killed in equal numbers mostly by their own race. The LEADING cause for Blacks are Gangs and Drugs.
My
Just where in hell did you get the information to make that assumption?
Have we discussed this? Have I stated this? Are we in a thread that is discussing my thoughts?
That statement alone says that meaningful discussion with you is not going to happen.
Everything I have gained is through very hard work.
I did not go to school telling my teachers I deserve good grades. I had a natural aptitude to books and classroom instruction and good grades were easy to get.
I did not tell Caucasians I deserved their money when I was a child. I hustled my tail off. I Sold coat hangers to dry cleaners for two cents a hanger. I Hustled rags to sell to the "rag factory" (they took cloths and recycled the fabric). I went to the Oakland Army Base on weekends helping shoppers with their shopping carts for tips. I was a Watkins Products door to door salesman (how many of you remember Watkins salve?). My mother stopped supplying me with new school clothes after the seventh grade. My neighbor, Mrs. Aracani, got me jobs with local carpet and other firms. That and my upward bound stipend where my school clothes from eight grade to twelfth grade came from.
I was more or less abandoned after high school. I made mistakes and even was homeless for a year, including a very severe winter. The shoes I wore had half dollar sized holes in them which I used newspaper to stuff over. I clawed my way out with the help of people, including conservatives who really did believe in "compassionate conservatism", helping.
I have raised a daughter who is in her last year of University. I have paid for co-paid for school, bought all her uniforms (she went to Catholic Schools including the oldest all girls Catholic School in California, Notre Dame in San Jose California, extremely selective in their admittance, and very expensive $16,000 a year), street clothes (when your daughter get to thirteen you have to throw away most of her old stuff, it's not appropriate and does not fill out the new curves.), and supplies.
Don't ever tell me about my attitude when you know nothing about me.
There can be no discussion with you.
Kappa Man Stew - you go!!! Ignore the man behind the curtain - everyone knows who he is! He loves to hear himself talk! What he doesn't see that the rest of us can see by his rants is that he is a bitter racist and gun nut.
Color does not make the person, character makes the person! If you are over 15 years old in most cultures, you have some sort of baggage.
Thank GOD - the majority of people (all over the world) do NOT think his way!
PS! Flee? Are you friggin serious? Hes a crime watch patrolman!!! You think the police should be required to flee when the deed turns rough?? ROFLMAO!! What are you people smokin and where did you come from?? Ohh hell ya!!! Id sure feel safe in my community if my agent was required to flee!!! How bout all you that live in your supposedly safe and secure gated community with security guard at the gate??? H,,,? Think your security guard should be required to flee when a street gang tries to enter your gate??? Flee??? See what happens! Some state must require the guards at these news centers to flee when crazies start making such rediculous comments like that, and now they are running rampant within the news media!!! Sorry fella! But really???
Ummm, no. He's is a self appointed Neighborhood Watch person that was not to be armed per the policies and the little meeting slash presentation he gave local law enforcement a while back stated this fact.
I would like to think the guard has more than two brain cells, calls the police and doesn't rile up a group of "thugs" all by themselves. Would you be the tough guy you want them to be? I doubt it.
This isn't Rambo, where the good guys can take out armies all by themselves, or are 100% fearless in the face of a certain beating. These are people with families and they would like to return home to them rather than thump their chests at group of people yelling "I am the law", while getting their heads beat in.
You can call it fleeing and I will call it good judgement. Call the real law enforcement and don't play a hero.
The only part about Zimmerman, was my first sentence. The rest was answering your skewed vision of what a lone security guard should do when faced with a street gang.
Bill-#s - are you friggin serious? Dude, do you not understand the difference between Neighborhood Watch volunteer and 'patrolman'? He was not a security guard and neighborhood watch rules state no carrying of a firearm.
I realize that none of us know exactly what occurred that night, but please at least have the reading comprehension when researching the story to understand what you can find out - to compare Zimmerman to a paid patrolman or paid security guard is ridiculous.
So maybe it's more - what are you smokin, where did you come from and heck, pass it this way.
sleepinsadie
He was not acting in the capacity of NW on the night of Feb 26, 2012. He was a concerned citizen. Nothing more nothing less. Unlike being a police officer when he wasn't on patrol he wasn't NW and thus not required to follow NW rules. BTW they are only rules not laws so he didn't violate any laws since he had a permit to carry as a citizen. FL has different types of carry permits for citizens, bail bondsmen, repo people, security guards, peace officers and law enforcement. George could carry as a private citizen, which he was at the time, but not in for work, which he wasn't at the time of the shooting.
Ummm..He was a private citizen on his way to the store and he was legally carrying his concealed weapon.
Where I live law enforcement response can take actually let me rephrase that has taken 1 hour to respond to a burglary in progress call...So please explain to me where it is I am supposed to retreat to while I wait for that 1 officer to come to my rescue
I'm wondering what you are smoking. First, he is no agent; he is an ordinary citizen, same as you and me, who participate in a neighborhood watch program. The neighborhood watcher are there to observe suspicious activity and report it to the police, period. Security guards would not act in the same manner as this neighborhood watch person. They have to be versed in the law and they would not follow a person deemed suspicious they would call the police for backup and wait for that backup. They do not drive around looking for "certain" criminals. They are usually stationed at the entry to the facility they guard, and they would most likely recognize most of the resident in that community. When they see a strange face, they would likely asked if the person resided there and if they could show proof of the same, would be on their way without incident. Security guards could hold the individual until transferred to police. Zimmerman had no such authority and was not a professional security guard, and he acted unprofessional an aloof, just like criminal gun zealots, wannabes act.
Lost...a thought here. If in fact Zimmerman was just "there" and ot on actual neighborhood watch patrol, that means he was simply an ordinary citizen. At the time, and by Zimmerman's own admission of the events, Martin was not committing a crime. As an ordinary citizen Zimmerman had the duty maybe to report what he deemed suspicious activity, which he did, but that is where his duty ended. Had Martin been committing an actual crime or was in the process of breaking in a home in preparation for the crime I maybe could see Zimmerman acting further.
Zimmerman should have never left his vehcile. Even the excuse of wanting to maintain sight of Martin is slim if he followed to the point Martin KNEW he was being followed.
Who cares where you retreat to. Remember, this is all on the premise that they are walking into a gated community with a posted guard and not out in the Pine Barrens.
So where you live isn't relevant to this discussion. Your name implies you do not reside in a gated community with a posted guard, correct?
Do you live in a gated community with a posted guard or not?
NYMike, the "posted guard" is irrelevant here. Please remember the neighborhood had been plagued with breakins over the previous few months. Obviously, if there even was a "posted guard" they were ineffective at keeping undesireables out of the neighborhood.
Realistically, no one commenting on this story can honestly say what they would do under the same circumstances. George Zimmerman had taken on a role of neighborhood watch organizer. In doing so, he had taken on the responsibility of doing whatever he could to stop the recent breakins (This is, after all, why the neighborhood started a watch program). Anyone who states that they would have called the police and reported the suspicious activity and then moved on with their lives, would not be the sort of person to be involved in a watch program, much-the-less be the organizer.
..I differ Average.
NYMike
WOW now George is some sort of "posted" "guard". Please provide where the evidence that George was a guard ANYWHERE within the state of FL. As for "posted" I'm not even sure they have a no trespassing sign posted... <<<<<<based on the second photo in the link.
I've lived in a "gated" community. Based on the value of the homes in that area they don't even come CLOSE to hiring real guards. They would be lucky to hire a security patrol that comes around 3 or 4 times a night.. and apparently they didn't even afford that. Their HOA dues is BARELY enough to cover operating expenses of the pool and related "common" utilities and maintenance never mind reserve funds. pools = holes in the ground that people throw money into. don't get me wrong pools are great if you use them but they COST a chunk of change to operate and maintain. I'll take a shot that their common insurance is close to 75K a year if not more and that is presuming they don't include hurricane coverage or flood insurance.
The legal and criminal liablities of GZ not following the guidelines of the NWP and not following the advice of the 911 dispatcher are the same as if you or I did not follow the rules when playing Monopoly. Please people get that through your heads.
In what foreign country is it OK to physically assault someone who you think is following you?
Zimm already said he "was following him", both in his truck and on foot. His statements were recorded when he called the police who told him not to follow. In what country should you not defend yourself is someone following you in a truck then pursuing you on foot after you try to walk away. Oh wait, South Africa under apartheid and the United States if you are Black. Stand there wait to be violated and shown you are are less than human with no rights.
Your statement is lacking in detail..very poorly written.
what you have on this post are a bunch of ungodly people any person with common sense should be able to understand what happened 1-a neighborhood has experienced a rash of break-ins 2-a concerned member of that neighborhood is watching out for his family and his neighbors families and property[sounds like a neighbor most people would love to have]. 3-person spots a individual he does not know and has never seen in the neighborhood. 4- person follows individual to confront and ask who he is and what he is doing there. 5-individual assaults person with intent to do bodily harm. 6-individual is shoot and kill. that is exactly what the court will find if justice is served its just common sense. there is not one person with any merit about themselves that would have done anything different
Oh. puh-leeze! George couldn't even remember the names of 3 streets in his neighborhood, despite having lived there for a number of years and claiming to be the nieghborhood watch captain.
How in the heck is he going to know every single person who has a right to be in the neighborhood in order to pick one out that "doesn't belong there"? Answer, he can't. That is why he made the mistake he made when he profiled Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman, according to his own statements and re-enactment, had the opportunity to identify himself as a member of neighborhood watch. He CHOSE not to.
Neightborhood WATCH is called Neighborhood WATCH for a reason. It is not called Neighborhood FOLlOW AnD CONFRONT. There is a reason for that, as well.
@john, in same country that you can get shot, and killed because your WALKING WHILE BLACK?!?!
mackman-912848
93% of ALL Black homicides are committed by BLACKS. See page 13 of the link. Your WWB is OLD and inaccurate. In the same report 84% of Whites were killed by other Whites. Between the two races/groups they account for 97% of the perpetrators and 97% of the victims. They have roughly EQUAL body counts of 50% Whites and 47% Black. So lets have BOTH sides quit trotting out the one side/group is killing the other is disproportionate numbers.
The breakdown gets more specific. 62% of Black victims and 66% of Black killers were involved in drugs. another 40% of Black victims and 42% of Black killers were gang related. Yes there is overlap. Odds are that 2/3 of the time the killer and victim are male. 53% of the victims 65% of the offenders are 18-34.
Based on THOSE numbers/statistics this case was UNIQUE as far as race but right on track with ages and genders.
And before the usual suspects come out and accuse me of being racist... I'm simply presenting factual data as collected by DOJ. so STFU already, whether you like the DATA or not it is reality. Someone is more likely to be killed by someone of their OWN race and more than likely it will be by a male 18-34 years of age. Statistically speaking though you are more likely to die in an auto or other type of accident and even more likely to die of a disease.
How is age right on track when Trayvon was 17 trust. OOOOOOOHHHH!!!! Got 'em!
OpenwidebBI44
How is age right on track when Trayvon was 17 trust. OOOOOOOHHHH!!!! Got 'em!
oooooooo you got me... 1 year... FACT is Trayvon is DEAD. Fact is that this is a very unique thing in that a non Black killed a Black. More typically it is another Black male who kills a Black returning from the store. do you really want to debate that? Even the "reverends" realized they couldn't keep this story about race once everyone wizened up that George was of Hispanic origins. As typical the "reverends" tried to make a story out of nothing and RAN before the house of (race) cards came tumbling down. It is funny they left town the day BEFORE the charges were announced and have not been back since claiming that race had ANY factor beyond Trayvon fit the description of those committing crimes in RTL.
What a worthless "news" story. And I have looked 3 times and I still can't find the "fictionalized case" that was presented to these experts.
I don't know why you can't find it...it's right at the bottom of the article, but here it is:
Smith is then "Not Guilty"
Good thing you didn't study criminology .
Feel free to post your qualifications as I highly doubt you studied criminology either and if you did you should ask for your money back for that course.
Blah pine.. Why ask for my money back when I'm getting paid because of my degree buddy. What I did study and what mostly everyone here had to learn is a little something called problem solving. Or you can chalk it up to reading comprehension, better yet, case studies followed with questions.. You'd fail by your own ignorance on this one, regardless of how retarded you might be.
Dave Dead people don't talk.
It wouldn't happen in another country because other countries aren't gun crazy like the US.
What happens in those other countries is that the murderers,rapist and robbers generally commit their crimes and their victims have no way to protect themselves because they are not allowed to have weapons so the victims are just murdered,raped and robbed., Then those Oh so civilized societies if they ever do catch those murderers,rapist and robbers usually set a lineint prison sentence and those murders,rapists and robbers are back out on the street to continue murdering,raping and robbing.
It must be refreshing to live in a country that puts the rights of its criminals above the concern and safety of its citizens...not
If you think those other countries are so great then feel free to move there, I am not saying you have to but I am saying you do not have the right to deny me the ability to defend my person,family and property.
You just described America with too many zealots carrying weapons without no training, little control and responsibility, or any knowledge of the destruction of that tool. Punks carry guns, whether legal or illegal. Most illegal punks kill only their target while most legal punks open fire on everything in sight without rhyme or reason, with unbelievable carnage.
Pine you really must be lost... How did you come up with such a great story about how other countries handle crime? You guys are generalizing way to much. And act as if the gun trade market doesn't exist .
Openwide, Reread Bills statement above and then tell me agin how us guys are the ones generalizing
Umm OK I read it..Isn't Bill your buddy?
Charles-1820634
Tell that to the over 150 wounded and 32 killed in Chicago in July.. including the 7 year old who was shot in the back running for cover from selling candy with her mother. Tell that to the 4 year old in the bronx who was attending a memorial service in remembrance of someone killed a year prior when the child was caught in the crossfire between two rival gangs.
yes there are 3-5 multiple homicides annually. They account for less than 5% of all homicide victims since 2000. See page 24 for both the number of multiple homicides AND percentage of ALL victims.
sap adams.....the US isn't gun crazy but crazy people with guns or a big mouth are!!!!Thank You, Mr Zimmerman
this story is why nbc,msnbc,and this reporter are all losing there jobs. this story is as stupid as they come. i am just surprised they did not find out how it would be delt with in some amazon pigmi tribe. they should do a story about how nbc doctored the audio tape to make zman look racist, that person got fired for it, just like this one should for this racist story. these people have no shame, and how stupid nbc thinks we are...well...i can see on this post...some of them are.
I can totally understand why you are losing your job as a reporter. You can't write, fact check or even spell.
By the way, the Pygmy tribes are from African and Asian areas not the Amazon basin....unless you are just applying the term to any group of short people.
There is nothing racist about this story as it is not about race. It is comments by some people that were asked their professional opinion about a fictitious crime and how they thought their country would adjudicate this purported crime. You do not have to like, but it is not racist, and you can always step away from the keyboard. Everything is not about you!!!!
Guess you lost your job too. The Baka and Mbuti are pigmy tribes of the Amazon.
despite the fact i have more like" clicks" than you two pinheads of fact and knowledge...and spelling, my first thought was, god loves idiots,he made enough of them... and you two are its shining stars!! my point was made in the way i wanted too, and you know what it meant...facts are only important to libs when it pertains to someeone who does not see it there way. my opinnion is valid, sorry you dont see that. stop drinking the koolaid, or sleeping with this storys reporter would be a good start :)
Given the facts presented above, which is what we are supposed to be discussing here, the simple truth of it is no he should not be charged.
I guess the click count is way down on this story and NBCNEWS needs some revenue in preparation for when they are sued once this case is over.
While it is of minor interest to see how the hypothetical case MIGHT happen in other places we, and NBCNEWS, need to keep in mind that this happened in Sanford FL, USA. Only the laws in effect the night of Feb 26, 2012 in Sanford FL, USA apply to the case; and no place else.
Part of the point of the story was to test the law itself as well as the circumstances of the particular case.
The interest in how it might play out in other jurisdictions around the world might be of "minor interest" to you, but it is of more interest I suppose to people who see the Stand Your Ground laws as dangerous and unneeded. I see the reaction of many of the posters on here to even the idea of fielding the case to other jurisdictions an affront to their sense of American exceptionalism.
Kind of like a Dad who yells at his son who has claimed that nobody else's Dad thinks what he did was wrong, "I don't give a rat's ass what the rules are in anybody's else's house, as long as you live under my roof you will do what I say!"
It a pretty childish reaction on the part of that Dad. He doesn't care about facts or other opinion, he just wants his will followed no matter what.
cul.....
Based on your idea let me give you a scenario...
Son is using foul language in a conversation. Other "dads" don't see it as wrong but son's dad doesn't want him using foul language...or, other dads don't set a curfew where this one dad does and son brsitles as other dads don't see breaking curfew as an issue.
I have no problem with the "you will follow my rules" argument. The other "dads" aren't the ones raising that particular son; hardly a childish reaction.
Lynn,
It's a good example you give.
But there are many others that would have us recoil in horror about how some parents raise their kids and make outrageous demands on them, such as the couple who repeatedly made their 14 year old boy kneel for hours at a time on a hard tile floor and then would beat him with a stick if he moved...they did the same but less frequently with their 9 yr old daughter. Do you think that child would have a reasonable reason to say, "But Dad, other parents don't punish their kids like this?"
Do you think those parents could legitimately claim a right to raise their kid the way they want with any opinion otherwise simply dismissed as interference? No of course not. Most of us as adults would see it as child abuse.
Now applying that to what I said about the autopilot rejection of international opinion about American law and this particular circumstance, I see the adamant refusal to even consider outside perspectives simply knee-jerk, arrogant and childish. Using American exceptionalism as a weapon against outside perspectives is stupid. That's what I was referring to.
NBC had to go outside of North America to find a lawyer who thought GZ should be even charged ( excepting of course those who are trying to make money off of the trgedy or those who are doing so because of political pressure).
While the "dads" analogy is an argument the FACT is that the case is in FLORIDA. In Sanford Florida USA George legally possessed a firearm as evidenced not only by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a), Florida Statute 790.251, but the fact that George was issued a CCW permit. NONE of the jurisdictions listed in the article allow any non military/police person to possess a handgun. NONE of the jurisdictions have FL Statute 776. I know for a FACT that England has a common law right to Self Defense, which is what US laws, except those in the state of LA, follow but that is the end of the similarities. They may as well have compared the 1st Amendments guarantee of freedom of religion to those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, Bosnia, Serbia. Different jurisdictions have different laws but only Florida laws apply in this case. No federal charges have been brought and are NOT likely.
A more VALID compare would have been Florida vs various states and even that wouldn't matter because this incident is not being tried in D.C (guilty of manslaughter)., NYC(guilty of manslaughter), Chicago(guilty of manslaughter), Salt Lake City(man slaughter toss a coin), San Francisco(manslaughter toss a coin), Dallas(no charges after a Grand Jury), Phoenix(tough call as George is of Hispanic descent), Denver(Cleared of charges by the local DA (Make my day law)) or Providence RI (don't know). It will be tried somewhere in Florida, most likely in Seminole County where FL Statute 776 exists and so far the ONLY charge against George is 2nd degree murder and NOTHING else. Stupidity is not a legislated offense so he can't be charged with that though he is a prime example of why we need such a law.
MSN-where was your outcry over this poor beautiful girl getting killed by a black last year? Her father also killed himself months after her murder. Why no continuous outcry over that? You know-Kathryn Filiberti? Have you ever even heard of her? 18 years old, and she's dead!
Well said.
Or Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, 23, who were carjacked, robbed, raped, tortured and then murdered by 4 black men and a black woman? Not news worthy? Not a hate crime?
I don't know about the outcry over that completely separate case. It has no relevance concerning this article at all.
There are murders happening all over our country everyday, of little girls, boys, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. This story captured the attention of the curious as well as news organizations, not just because of the murder, but, how the shooting was handled by law enforcement, with little or no investigation, and the seemed disregard for the child involved,and his family. Tuff, go and read something else and let us that enjoy MSNBC/NBC get our freak on! In America we have choices, ya know????
Charles
So you're telling me that anyone else who gets murdered isn't deemed newsworthy? Your comment makes no sense. To me. it shows an extreme double standard. What's ironic, is that the lefty's will cry about hunting, and some damned insect becoming endangered, but not human lives. Go figure!
@jerry, or how bout the hundreds, upon hundreds of Black people who were murdered, beat, burnt, lynched for HUNDREDS of years at the hands of the klan?!
How about the hundreds, upon hundreds of Women who are murdered,beat, burnt, hanged and raped by Black pimps still today?
kpm58
reliable citation please?
mackman-912848
Relevance to THIS case? This article? Not happening today and has been reported on in the past. Previous crime committed by OTHER people to other people does not justify criminal action by or against those not involved today. I've cited elsewhere here that the the LARGEST percentage of homicides committed for the past 20 years or so have been perpetrated by those of the same race. 93% of Black homicides are committed by Blacks and 84% of White homicides are committed by Whites. near equal percentages/numbers are committed by Blacks and Whites and between the two groups account for 97% of the killers and victims. See the DOJ report.
I don't have a citation, it was a tv documentary on human trafficking.
kpm58
cite the TV documentary then... IMDB, google all work wonders. Example Food Inc., which btw slats thing more than just a little.
From the documentaries I've seen most of the human trafficking in the USA is Hispanic or Asian girls or women done by, amazingly, those of Hispanic or Asian descent.
Just out of curiosity to see how far msnbc would go I read this article. I can't beleive they waste their time asking other countries what they would do in this case. For one I doubt other countries' leaders would say Trayvon looked like their son if they had one. I also doubt they would allow the NBP and Al Sharpton to come into town and run the show by putting a bounty on Charles Jones(lmao) if he had already been set free and it is very doubtful any would have a news team that called him a white-Hispanic. MSNBC, you can use the word punks without censoring it can't you? I suppose you wanted people in other countries to think he used a racial slur didn't you?
I also don't think that other countries would have just swept it under the rug without doing a thourough investigation. That is the whole gist of why this has gotten so much attention.
Donna P-2692688
Had this debate before with you. The reasons this has garnered so much attention was the first headlines out and the feeding frenzy that followed. "White Neighborhood Watch captain shoots Black child" with the article implying that Trayvon was shot in the back unprovoked. We now know there was a street fight and Trayvon was not shot in the back and the shooting was NOT racially motivated.
As to sweeping under the rug you are still drinking THAT koolaid? The Martins were screaming March 8 barely after their child was buried while not cooperating with reasonable requests for access to Trayvons phone and failing to inform authorities of "deedee" phone call or her existence claiming there was NO investigation when in fact it was on going, they were very aware their assistance was needed and just over a week later the lead detective, after completing an investigation without the Martins assistance, and their hindrance in some ways, was prepared to submit charges of manslaughter when the STATE DA again declined to file charges for lack of evidence.
What a waste of an article, probably written to keep this case in the news cycle.
A: IT DID NOT HAPPEN ABROUD.
B: GUN LAWS ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES, BOTH OWNERSHIP AND ABILITY TO CARRY.
C: LIKE IT OR NOT GZ LEGALLY OWNED HIS GUN(S) AND WAS PERMITTED TO CARRY ONE.
In answer to C -- he may have been legally allowed to carry a gun but as per neighborhood watch he was in violation to all their guidelines. So was he on neighborhood watch as he claimed, then A. he had no right to follow the teen and B. he was not to have a firearm on him and C. he was never to confront the teen.
Anderson-656479
see my post #10.3 - Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:01 AM EDT. George was NOT on duty/patrol/employed as NW at the time of the shooting.
Too all of you ass hats who keep saying " he may have been legally allowed to carry a gun but as per neighborhood watch he was in violation to all their guidelines".... He wasn't on neighborhood watch patrol when this happened. He was driving to Target (the department store for you retards that will try to make it something gun related) when he saw Martin. So the neighborhood watch has NOTHING to do with this case. He was a citizen like anyone else who was carrying his firearm legally.
And stalking an unarmed child who had committed no crime and had ever right to be where he was and the right to proceed to his destination unmolested by a medicated, paranoid and profiling, armed adult.
Say what: You just agreed with those of us who say Treyvon Martin was of no business of Zimmerman and Zimmerman had no right to follow or confront Martin, since he was not on some fictional neighborhood watch patrol, as some of the fairies come here and try to convince us. A "citizen like anyone else" has no standing to follow and individual or confront that individual under any circumstance, period! Doing so is threating and is the cause of this incident, and also why Zimmerman is seen as the aggressor criminal and has no self defense cover in this murder of this child.
...a citizen that was constantly blowing up a police line as he stalked a teenage boy that was walking..ooooooh anD whom admitted to be on patrol with a gun on hand .
Agree. An absolute waste of an article. I guess now that they have tried him in the press and the court of public opinion they are now going to give him a hypothetical trial in the international courts.
I don't know whether Z will be found guilty or not. I don't know what racial or rambo motivations were or were not present when M was shot. That is a job for lawyers, juries, and judges to discover, debate, deliberate, and decide upon.
I don't live in any of those other countries. I could not care less what their gun laws or criminal laws are or what some attorney or alleged "legal expert" on those country's laws thinks. More NBC news crap.
He did not admit to being on patrol, and he was legally carrying his pistol, if you think he was on patrol youre going to have to come up with some kind of proof, good luck with that. As for who confronted whom, there is no way to prove that either, which constitutes reasonable doubt. Zimmerman does not have to prove himself innocent, the state has to prove him guilty, and they dont have the evidence to do that.
Zimmerman had every right to follow Martin, There is no law in this country that says a person can not follow another person, Zimmerman had not made any threats against Martin either verbal or implied, Zimmermans right to be curious as to what Martin was doing is no less that Martins right to walk home, Following someone on one occasion is not stalking no matter how you try to twist it to make it so. Martin attacked Zimmerman and is the initiator of the incident.
Yes I know you will now give me your unqualified legal opinions and tell me how Zimmerman broke the law.
Please feel free to cite any law,statute or ordinances that prohibits a citizen from following someone , Let me help you...You can not...There are none, Zimmerman has the same rights to be in the area as Martin.
As I said before...Not Guilty
This case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that, WALKING WHILE BLACK in America with a bunch of wussies with guns, is bad for your health, and LIFE threatening.
Like i said before..all of the circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies including any small detail that the prosecution has will be key. None of which is strong on its own but when you put it all together the case against George can be very strong. Take heed to what I'm telling you because I speak the truth. I'm not trying to dissuade you in to believing anything. They don't have the smoking gun (bad analogy ha) but they have more then enough small evidence that adds up. Look up the definition of stalking and invasion of privacy pine. I know people do stuff like this all the time but that doesn't make it legal..just because you weren't caught . And Steve he didn't admit that but that is what he was doing . And he did admit prior to Trayvons death that he would carry his gun either on him or in his truck while on patrol .
Maybe you should look up the legal definition of stalking because you certainly do not know what it means, Further there is no invasion of privacy as they were both out in a public setting, Here are some facts, I can follow you...it is not illegal or unlawful, I can walk up and look you right in the face...again not unlawful or illegal...But you know what is illegal and unlawful is when you turn and assault me simply because you think I violated some imaginary protected space.
Wrong...Thinking that you are some badass punk and that you can assault someone simply because you do not like them following you may get you killed and in this case it did.
mackman-912848
Repeating that old line doesn't make it so... I've responded earlier so won't repeat myself here. Now if you honestly feel walking while Black is endangering your health or threatening your life I suggest you change your genes... remember you stated that it is being Black that is the danger. As to wussies with guns...again 93% of all Blacks are killed by other Blacks and 62% of the time it involves drugs so you could be onto something there about WWB is dangerous... especially if you walk around a Black male age 18 to 24 (Black males in that group were 4 times as likely to commit homicide than any other group). Talk to the DoJ if you don't care for their information.
Then go right ahead and follow people pine. Let's see how long you keep that up. No normal person in their right mind will just follow someone and do it because they're in public. It's funny how you generalize things. The second someone sees you following them the natural instinct would be to lose you. If they can't and feel comfortable approaching you then they will or just simply call the cops. Not to many people call the cops for a fly on the wall though.
Oh yea - Here we go again...the Treyvon merry-go-round saga.
...How would courts in OTHER COUNTRIES deal with... NBC...?
...GOD BLESS AMERICA... AGAIN... SOON...
Amen Jimbo....
A lot better than Fox -- isn't Rubert Murdock's firm on trial in the UK? Talk about respect. Phone hackers to get stories. That is some low life crap over at Fox. The likes of Murdock and his ilk need to take a hike.
He'd love to, but we've abandoned Him.
Courts in other countries would do nothing to MSNBC, since they have not committed any crime. On the subject of God, if he provide blessings on a merit basis he may never bless us again. We've shown time and time again that we may not be deserving of those blessings. Comments like yours might be a clue????
Kind of surprised they didn't ask Iran or their loved Palestine. For sure we need to know what sharia law would do to him to be politically correct.
off with his head I'm sure.
How about Mehico. Chop him up or just burn him alive.
NBC -- REALLY LIBERAL and CRAP.. Guess NBC is out of real Stories...
Why do you have time to write about the old TVM/Smith case when you could be disclosing about-
the Natiional Debut,
Waste Fraud and Abuse,
Corruption in Congress,
GAO and Spending,
High $$ parties we pay for.
Why the president has so much time for Golf, and Vacations and I can not even afford one..
Why Foreign Aid is wasted and so much is spent,
Why Gasoline costs so much when in Brazil it is equiv of $ 0.35 USD per Gallon -
Energy holding companies -- who is really robbing the US citizens.
How Corrupt BoA really is....
Why?? Because NBC Really Sucks Liberal tail...
Should be limit to Journalism and just bad subjects
- Smith has not been found guilty of Murder, therefore "killing" is a in appropiate use in the title - it was a death. No proof yet that it was no self defense.
I was in a self defense position with no Gun - to this day I wish I had my 9mm.
I was Robbed by 2 illegal Mexicans in Phoenix, took Police 3 hrs to respond. The Mexicans used a brick, wish I had my Gun, They would be gone by now.... Canada is a liberal kiss but Criminal paradise, why ?? No Guns.. No Death Penality... Guess what, when there is no recourse the criminals have a field day..
When Stupid People give up Guns and take away out 2nd ammendment rights it becomes time for Civil Unrest and Take back the Government... Period --
NBC -- Do a real story for once, you are Cheap Journalists run by Hacks...
This rant is ridiculous. As per Canada the crime rate can't even compare to the USA. The real thing is stupid people should not be allowed to have guns and it sounds like you fit the bill.
Nah, it ain't ridiculous at all - there are major stories in our country not being covered and there's very little investigative journalism in any of it and in case you aren't paying attention - those stories won't be covered at all or to really get to the bottom of it, cause big money would/will stop it.
Do you really think that major news publications in other countries waste their time with - how would America prosecute this? If they do, it's simply to keep people from paying attention to 'real' stories.
"Smith has not been found guilty of Murder, therefore "killing" is a in appropiate use in the title - it was a death. No proof yet that it was no self defense."
Really? Even if it is proven that it was self defense, it was still a killing. Or do you somehow believe that the firing of the gun and the bullet striking the target are unrelated events?
Most of your comments are not worth commenting on. However, your thoughts on Canada shows that you have never visited that wonderful country or you are a news troll. Since you seem to spend most of your time behind your keyboard, please Google and/or Bing crime rates in Canada and compare those rates to those of the rates here. Then, come back here and give us some worthwhile information. I dare you!!!
Charles,
They won't...they don't care and that is the point.
Show the Real Travon Martin Picture - the Older Teen Picture with his Size...
Not the Cute Baby Picture....
Liberal NBC...
This photo was taken very close to his death date. There have been false photos posted on the web for the people that will believe anything. Apparently you didn't see the photos taken of him three days before he died riding a horse now did you. You can tell from those photos that this one is very close in time to those.
I would like to know why, WHY the news NEVER carries an up to date photo of Trayvon Martin. Is it because the picture of a cute 13 year old is much more likely to get a favorable response from the readers? Anderson, I would like to see some of those 'current' photos. I haven't seen any of them yet.
You are just either out of touch, not following the news or just an obtuse troll. Lots of pictures a few days before his death were made available all across the media.
"...still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..." - P. Simon ("The Boxer")
Try these, they show Martin just prior to his death:
http://globalgrind.com/news/Trayvon-Martin-Prom-Picture-Photos-exclusive
Yep! All seem like a template for the photo carried by MSNBC. However, I have not seen any photo that suggest that the photo was a license for Zimmerman to murder this child. I guarantee a photo will not be his defense, nor will it set him free--nothing can do that!
Murder, self defense? That thug according to the evidence attacked Zimmerman from behind. But everything will hopefully come out int he trial and hopefully it will be a fair trial and not influenced by the mobs who have no clue being roused into a frenzy by self serving activists and the media only looking for ratings no matter how they get them.
To: Ian Johnston, NBC News -
PUBLISH YOUR PHONE NUMBER so I can tell you to go to England and Stay there..
God bless the sane people!! Thank you for your comment.
just say no
Happens every day to both white and black teenagers, at the hands of black teenagers, and you dont say shi& about it unless Brutha Al and the Catfish tell you to. Why dont you just admit it, whitey shot blackie and you dont care anything about the circumstances or the evidence, whitey gotta pay. The most dangerous thing to a black teenager is another black teenager. Face it, Po Little Trayvon jumped on the wrong guy and got his dumb ass shot.
@steve, the most dangerous then to a Black Man in America has been proven to be a RACIST white man
I see, white racists are killing black teenagers in Chicago at an alarming rate.
Steve........You couldn't get out of your car in those Nigga areas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!There aren't any whites around. Actually, it would be great neighborhoods for Neo-Nazis.
I don't give a crap what the rest of the world thinks! We have our own laws and the Libs out there keep trying to put us under "other" nations laws since there are still AMERICANS in this country stopping there insanity.
Then why did you read the article?
Zieglo87- Sorry if my point seemed to go over you head... I want Zimmerman tried using AMERICA laws and the laws or opinions of other nations is irrelevant...