I would like everyone to pay attention to this Trayvon/Zimmerman story – but NOT to the story itself, but to how it is being used.
This story is being intentionally used by this Administration. It is being used to attack the Republican Party, and to start racial conflict. It is difficult to ignore that implying official determination while admitting he doesn’t have all the facts is a pattern with Obama:
If we accept that Obama is totally incompetent, then we might dismiss these sort of comments. However, if we take him at his word and accept the logical conclusion of his word, then we should accept that he is not incompitent, that he is doing what he said he would do:
And, if we pay attention to and accept the logical conclusions to the things his closest advisers have said:
Then mix in a little knowledge of history, and it doesn’t take long for a person of any honest understanding to see that this administration — at least by outward appearances — is intentionally seeking to create the crisis or crises it believes it need to affect sweeping changes in our society and governmental structure. Throw in the fact that, having once dismissed charges against the Black Panthers for clear election violations based in racism and the DOJ’s ignoring of the most recent felony by the Black Panthers, the add offering a $10,000 bounty for the death of Zimmerman, and the Administration’s actions become all but impossible to explain in any other way than they are intentionally trying to tear the fabric of this nation apart.
What we are witnessing in this nation is the repeat of a familiar pattern. History is full of examples of this pattern. While the specific details may be different here, the purpose and goals are the same as they always are: divide and conquer. Now what does it say about this nation that so many of us are so ready to discard the ideals and principles that founded this nation? What happened to the rule of law: innocent until proven guilty and the protections of due process? When did this nation become a collection of special interests and gangs? When did we embrace the whim of man over the rule of law? When did we turn toward “social justice” and “group rights” instead of INDIVIDUAL rights and liberty? When did we become Revolutionary France?! And how many heads will we demand before we collapse into the ruin that became France after their revolution?
Some might think I am jumping to unwarranted conclusions, but I disagree. This Administrations actions can easily be viewed in the way I have just described, and the old Marine in me is remembering my training to ALWAYS HONOR THE THREAT (especially when it is the individual rights and liberty of every American which are at stake).
The Rio Norte Line 
Of course Obama’s using this. He’s an opportunist. That said, the fella committed a crime and should be punished. If he had had accomplices, I would not be against any method used to retrieve that information from him.
This may sound harsh, because I do believe innocent until proven guilty. However; as I’ve said before, if we must, as taxpayers, house them, feed them, bathe them, clothe them, entertain them, exercise them, provide medical care and legal appeals for them, than WTF is fair or Constitutional about that?
Neither you nor I know he committed a crime: there hasn’t been a trial yet. That’s the point. That you advocate “guilty until proven innocent” nullifies your claim to believe in the rule of law.
Please, go stand over there with Obama and the rest of those who no longer value the rule of law and due process so those of us trying to hold on to these values can know who the enemy are.
“Neither you nor I know he committed a crime: there hasn’t been a trial yet.” By offering up this statement YOU did exactly what you advised not to do in your first paragraph. “. . . pay attention to this Trayvon/Zimmerman story – but NOT to the story itself, but to how it is being used.”
Put yourself in Martin’s fathers place and say that again. Zimmerman call the police on a non-911 phone line. He was advised by the dispatcher that the police would investigate and for him (Zimmerman) to STAY HOME! Instead, he got into his SUV with a loaded 9mm handgun and proceeded to follow (stalk according to some) Martin through the neighborhood. At some point, Zimmerman got out of his SUV with his 9mm and confronted Martin.
Who complied with Florida “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand Your Ground” law, Zimmerman or Martin?
Yes, black, you are correct. The liberal politicians and media are using this GOLDEN opportunity to attack the Republican party and possibly start a racial conflict. They will exhort and extort until there is nothing left but the opinions of ill-informed minority voters who will vote for Obama because they believe this crap. The now-famous Obama “If I had a son . . .” statement was nothing but racial. If that had been a Jewish kid, Asian kid, or God forbid a white kid, what would Obama have had to say? Very little to nothing I’m sure. When is Gingrich and Santorum going to start to use their heads when making statements to the press? Notice that ROMNEY has added NOTHING to this discussion.
So you are telling me that the LEO’s are criminals? Because that is what you have to be arguing for you to tell me to worry about Martin’s father’s feelings rather than waiting for authorities to actually do their jobs: you have already concluded the cops failed to do theirs. Remember, this case is a month old today, so for Zimmerman to still be free, there must either be information we do not know, or the local LEO’s (attorneys too) are crooked.
Or are you now telling me you trust the media to tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I don’t, but you might. I don’t trust them because I would have heard NOTHING about this case were it not for the REAL media on the radio and internet:
3 Black men MURDER UNARMED white college student in his dorm – Where is CNN? FOX? MSNBC?
Now, put yourself in that victim’s family’s place. Can we assume these three suspects are guilty and are racists? Can we issue rewards for the deaths of these accused?
One more thing: I refuse to condemn anyone for trying to defend his/her house or neighborhood. In case you have forgotten or are unaware, the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no – repeat – NO duty or responsibility to defend you or protect your property. They can if they are present, but they have been said to have NO “duty” to do so. So it would be – IMHO – a MISTAKE to just “sit tight and wait” – IF there is a real threat to other people and property. Whether or not there was is still in doubt, but then, I guess the reports that Zimmerman had a broken nose and injuries to the back of the head must have been related to something other than this shooting.
FC,
All I am asking people to do is trust the authorities to do their jobs. Yes, difficult to take from me – especially since I readily admit I am more than cynical toward govt. But I trust locals much more than State officials, and State govt. infinitely more than ANY Fed govt. If we can’t at least trust our local LEO’s, then the only thing left is to start shooting and see what is left when the fires finally burn out as that means the nation is already in the hands of tyrants. I’d prefer to believe we’re not that far gone – yet (but I could be wrong)
“I refuse to condemn anyone for trying to defend his/her house or neighborhood.”
Zimmerman was not being attacked, robbed, burglarized, or anything else. Had he been he would have been completely within his rights and the law to defend himself. He, in FACT, confronted Martin. It is not his (nor your) place to “defend” the neighborhood. Simply reporting a suspicious person and letting the police do their jobs would have sufficed.
How well did that work for the honest, hard-working shop owners in the Watts riots? Or countless other incidents where the police waited until AFTER the crime was over. There is a reason people have said the police are nothing more than the force that comes along AFTER the shooting, strings the yellow tape, chalks the white lines and takes reports from witnesses so they can try to catch the people who did it all AFTER the fact.
FC,
We NEVER forfeit our right to self-defense – not even in society. It is a natural right, and you CANNOT give it up. If you think you can, then you are embracing Hobbs and the idea that govt. controls you because it grants rights.
Again, I will point out that you are trusting the media – the GOVT CONTROLLED MEDIA – and taking the side of what you have been told to do by the govt.: accepting guilt because “they” tell you he is guilty. I labeled this a pattern of history for a reason, and you are illustrating how people get caught up in and unwittingly become part of that pattern.
As for me: until a jury of my peers tells me Zimmerman is guilty, I will hold an opinion but reserve judgment because I BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW – not the whims of men.
So my husband and I are in an argument about this case. Ironically, he’s with B. and I’m with FL. I asked him to please respond, and he did (miracles do happen). May I present Mr. Kellsbells (aka F.) :
Zimmerman was attacked as is evident from not only an eye witness account but also from the second call to 911.
Does Zimmerman not have the right to walk the same path that Martin did? If you think not, then you must be prejudiced against Hispanics. Truly, I believe people do not have enough information to even hazard a good guess as to the happenings.
I once had an unrecognized vehicle park across from my house. I did not hestiate to ask the white meth-heads “anything I can help you with?” They drove off. I then took a walk to with my dogs to ascertain that they had left the neighborhood. You are telling me I should have gone into my house, bolted the doors, shut the blinds, and called the cops. With a little luck I would get Eric Holder on the phone and he would personally come to assist. That might be how you would handle the situation but not the way I choose. And by the way, as in the Martin case, there had been a string of unwelcome events in the neighborhood. And if I became aware of someone acting against my neighbors, I believe it’s not only my right but my obligation to do everything I can to remediate the situation.
Watching out for our neighbors and neighborhoods was once considered the proper thing to do, but that was back when we had a sense of unity that comes from knowing you are part of the community. Today, we have been successfully culled into “groups,” then further subdivided and separated by our computers and cell phones. Now, we take orders from a LCD screen rather than our own brains.
Oh, to be a community of responsible, free-thinking INDIVIDUALS again…
“Watching out for our neighbors and neighborhoods was once considered the proper thing to do, but that was back when . . . ” Still is, but I can’t understand why you are being so deliberately obtuse as to realize Zimmerman had NO right to pursue or confront Martin with a loaded gun. His right to confront ended when Martin walked away from him. There is no room in our society for vigilante justice.
“Does Zimmerman not have the right to walk the same path that Martin did?” Zimmerman was not casually strolling along through the neighborhood along “the same path” and encounter Martin. He pursued him with a loaded 9mm handgun. No, kells. Zimmerman does not have the right to pursue anyone. He is not a sworn law enforcement officer. Martin was minding his own business walking from the store back to his fathers girlfriend’s house. Zimmerman was acting beyond any legal authority you can come up with.
And now my rebuttal, my love. Let’s go with your first point, shall, we?
“not only an eye witness account but also from the second call to 911”. Do you know the percentages of the reliabilty of eyewitness accounts? Let me try and find it for you, sweet cheeks.. thought you may find this an interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
Moving right along.. “Does Zimmerman not have the right to walk the same path that Martin did?” Sure, he does. Should he have brought a f’g 9mm on a walk? I don’t think so. And those “meth-heads” in our “hood” were just trying to get laid. Puh- leeeeze!!!
I’m sorry, but there is no reason for Zimmerman not to have shut the blinds and waited for 9/11!
It will be interesting to see if you reply……What to say? Hmmm…..I say I’ll still s— your c— if you play nice. (Of course, you always do)……
Enough with the niceties………. Bring it. (Unless, of course, I have intimidated you, as I do every male on the web…..Not to be a braggadocio, but to be a braggadocio). 😉
And there she goes, deciding who should and who shouldn’t be allowed to exercise THEIR individual rights and under what circumstances.
And with those words, she shuffles over to stand with Obama and every other “do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do” minded person who has ever lived. Kells, you are arguing for those who would end our freedoms based on what THEY think right. I count you enemy on this issue – and in general as you do this far to often to be counted daughter of liberty.
You see, you cannot claim to be for a person’s right to free speech if you claim authority to dictate when and under what conditions they have that right. Same with their right to move around their own neighborhood – or to bare arms – or to be considered innocent until our peers say otherwise.
“How well did that work for the honest, hard-working shop owners in the Watts riots?” And you compare this incident in Florida to the Watts riots (where the blacks burned down their own businesses)? Please.
Yes, because I am looking at a principle, not a particular. When we allow ourselves to get distracted by particulars, we quickly get sucked down by moral quicksand and – sooner or later – end up supporting the wrong side of right.
However, if we learn to look ONLY at the core principles in question, and then keep our allegiance to those principles, then we not only make consistent decisions, we can generally stay on the right side of wrong.
“(where the blacks burned down their own businesses)” – – – Clarification (before it’s made an issue of).
where blacks burned down black-owned businesses
from the Mr. Kellsbells (aka F.) :
“Zimmerman had NO right to pursue …” – its all in the phrasing du jour. The fact is that Zimmerman followed Martin. You could also be creative and conjure up a more provocative phrasing of Martin’s actions by asking “What right did Martin have to scope out the neighborhood?”
I’m curious why you would think Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin? Since when is there no free speech? Does it end when a Latino speaks to an African-American?
“reliabilty of eyewitness accounts” – Didn’t address the recorded 911 call, and the bludgeoned Zimmerman.
“I’m sorry, but there is no reason for Zimmerman not to have shut the blinds and waited for 9/11!”
I don’t cower, Maybe Zimmerman doesn’t like the idea either.
There are three facts undisputable: Zimmerman followed Martin. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Everything else is conjecture and hysteria.
Oh brother! I cannot believe you’re turning into some sorta “B.” follower. And please don’t try to play lawyer with me! I’m very adept at that B.S. You know my weaknesses and we’ll not go there . (Although, I must say, aside from your bias opinion, I’d like to take you and …..FOCUS! Yes, focus! What was I talking about? Oh! I was debating you!!
Was Martin “scoping” the hood? C’mon. You don’t know! I do know that you didn’t take the AK47 out to “chat” with the so-called “meth-heads” that were merely parking, er, f—–g.. Why did this fella bring a 9mm?
Out and about, out and about….hmmmm…so ….I should take that shocker thingy with me if I’m out and about? Reckon that or a 9mm, huh? Here is where I believe FL and I disagree with you and B: The fella should’ve stayed home! The two of you are promotiing vigilante justice. Why the hello didn’t the fella just wait for the friggin cops?
I think you both want to be helpful, but you must always remember that no good deed goes unpunished.
I know it is bedtime. I hope you will reply…
Like I said, Kells: go stand over there with Obama and the rest of the crowd that thinks it is their duty to tell the rest of the world what they should and shouldn’t do. I count you enemy of liberty because you are arguing either A – out of ignorance, as we all are at this point and/or B – from a sense of moral superiority that has made you feel entitled to trample the natural rights of other individuals.
Even if Zimmerman DID do something questionable, he did not break any laws nor trample anyone’s rights by simply following someone he considered suspicious. Nor did he violate any laws to carry his weapon. Furthermore, IF the reports are correct and Zimmerman was attacked first, then Tony’s correct: this story ends there as – at that point – Zimmerman rightfully acted in self-defense.
I am more afraid of a nation that defends those who prey on others and attacks those who try to defend themselves than I am of people like Zimmerman. But I STILL want to wait to see what the authorities and – more importantly – a jury has to say about this case because I still believe in the founding ideals and principles of this nation.
this comment section is an absolute riot today! i will side with zimmerman on this case. initially the news media had me. but then i thought, why havent they really taken zimmerman into custody? then more facts come out, and as it seems now that the nation is in an uproar and zimmerman has a bounty on his head……
zimmermans rights- 1. right to drive on public street. 2. right to carry a handgun with permit. 3. duty as a neighborhood watch. 4. right to defend himself when he is being attacked while he was on the ground.
martins rights – 1. right to walk on a public street. 2. right to carry skittles and sweet tea. 3………..his rights ended when his fist made contact with zimmermans face.
when more facts come to light, views will change. should zimmerman have heeded warnings from dispatch? he made a choice. to retreat was in his rights and to follow was in his rights. he chose to ascertain why this hooded kid was acting suspicious. then zimmerman was attacked by a 6’3 hooded martin who was acting strangely. zimmerman standing at 5’9 should have felt threatened by a 6’3 dd behaviored attacker. while being beaten while he was on the ground zimmerman released a round from his sidearm into the chest of his attacker. the more and more i learn about this case, the more common sense is made out of it.
“martins rights – 1. right to walk on a public street. 2. right to carry skittles and sweet tea. 3………..his rights ended when his fist made contact with zimmermans face.”
Martin’s rights – 3 . . . . his rights ended when his fist made contact with zimmerman’s face. Wrong, Tony.
Martin’s rights – 4. The right to STAND HIS GROUND and defend himself when confronted by an unknown person carrying a loaded gun who challenged his right #1.
zimmermans rights- 1. right to drive on public street. 2. right to carry a handgun with permit. 3. duty as a neighborhood watch.
4. right to defend himself when he is being attacked while he was on the ground. Wrong, Tony.
Under Florida’s Castle Doctrine Law (or Stand Your Ground), the aggressor/instigator of the action does not have the right to self defense unless he has called off the encounter and retreated. At this time we simply don’t know whether that happened or not, and likely never will.
The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . .
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Even then, the Zimmerman wasn’t automatically granted the use of DEADLY FORCE. You can only meet the force of the attacker with a force proportional to the threat. Martin did not have a gun. He was simply beating the crap out of Zimmerman. Now a case can be made that Zimmerman was afraid Martin would get his gun (Zimmerman’s) and shoot him, but again, that is something we don’t know whether Martin would have done or not.
Zimmerman screwed up big time. That’s the bottom line. His desire to play cop and be a hero overcame his good judgement to stay away from the kid. Like someone on here said, if he had followed him in his truck (and stayed in his damn truck), reporting to the police, and not getting out and confronting Martin, this would not have happened.
I have a right to self defense. That right does NOT depend on the govt. or police – PERIOD!
Zimmerman has a right to confront someone he has reason to believe may be up to no good in his neighborhood – PERIOD!
To argue that Zimmerman did wrong is to say Martin had a “right” to assault Zimmerman because he was confronted. Thanks for letting us know we have a right to break someone’s nose and pummel their head into the ground if they stop us and ask us what we’re doing AND declaring that the person we assault then has no “right” to defend himself from us…even if we kill him in the process. After all, he had no right to ask me what I was doing in his neighborhood…
Tony is correct: too many people are jumping to conclusions and, IF, IF, IF all the available information available is true, those people are also on the WRONG SIDE OF RIGHT!
“I have a right to self defense.” Yes, we do. I agree 100%.
“That right does NOT depend on the govt. or police – PERIOD!” You know better. This statement from a man who previously posted; “I BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW – not the whims of men.”
“Zimmerman has a right to confront someone he has reason to believe may be up to no good in his neighborhood – PERIOD!” Zimmerman did not have reason to believe Martin was up to no good. Martin was completely within his rights walking through a neighborhood to get to his residence. He had a bottle/can of tea in his pocket. Zimmerman does not say Martin was looking in windows of homes or vehicles. Martin was simply minding his own business.
What you are promoting is the right for any citizen to take justice into his own hands when that citizen BELIEVES, without probable cause, that another citizien MIGHT be up to no good. You are, in fact, saying that I cannot walk down my own street, excersizing my 1st Amendment rights, without being accosted by another citizen. You, my friend, are promoting oppression and a Sovereign Citizen Movement ;
“The “sovereign citizen” movement is a loosely organized collection of groups and individuals who have adopted a right-wing anarchist ideology originating in the theories of a group called the Posse Comitatus in the 1970s. Its adherents believe that virtually all existing government in the United States is illegitimate and they seek to “restore” an idealized, minimalist government that never actually existed. To this end, sovereign citizens wage war against the government and other forms of authority using “paper terrorism” harassment and intimidation tactics, and occasionally resorting to violence. “
NO!
Zimmerman did not walk up to this guy and just shoot him. Had he done THAT, then you would have an argument. But as it stands now, you are blaming the apparent victim.
When I have no “right” to do something that is otherwise legal because I might “cause the bad guys to attack,” then I have no rights at all.
You and I will not agree here, FC. Not on this principle.
” . . . then zimmerman was attacked by a 6’3 hooded martin who was acting strangely. zimmerman standing at 5’9 should have felt threatened by a 6’3 dd behaviored attacker.”
This is important? Why? Zimmerman also weighed 200+ lbs and Martin weighs 140-150. Zimmerman is 28 years old and Martin was 17.
Self defense?? It was not within the Sanford PD’s authority to accept Zimmerman’s word that this was self defense without proof. A good defense lawyer would raise the issue, but Zimmerman — not the prosecutor — has to prove he acted reasonably. The Sanford PD had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, and in fact, the first officer on the scene had cuffed him and was prepared to arrest him.
“Probable cause, which the government needs to demonstrate in order to arrest and try Zimmerman, is a pretty easy standard to satisfy. Generally, the government needs only to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant committed a crime. As a Florida appeals court recently held:
Probable cause to arrest exists when facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has [been] or is being committed.”
.
The government need not prove that an offense has actually occurred in order to arrest Zimmerman and try him. Instead, the government must establish that after weighing the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person could believe that Zimmerman has committed a crime.
Back to the original topic:
If this story is true:
Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head
Then my original point is strengthened: the govt. is using the media to intentionally manipulate the public by inciting conflict that they will be able to use to further restrict our rights and liberty. The pattern is clear; this nation is not immune; and the signs of this pattern are everywhere in current American politics.
FC,
SO, if Zimmerman was wrong to defend himself while having his head bashed into the cement, then he would have been wrong had he done so in his front yard. And if he would be wrong to defend himself in his front yard, then he would be wrong to do so in his kitchen. So where is the difference here? Is it only the law? Because, if you are going to stand on the law in this way, you have given up your justification to ever criticize slavery, or racial laws, or ANY law that is “legally instituted.”
I’m sorry, but when we start to forget that the law is ONLY legitimate when it supports and preserves INDIVIDUAL natural rights, then they have forgotten the very reason for this nation – the reasons set out in the Declaration of Independence. At that point, you also prove the Progressives correct: the Constitution WILL defend a socialist dictatorship – all you have to do is “interpret” it the way you need it to read.
Again, back to my original argument: these comments are a perfect example of how effective this pattern is. You may think that the police and military in this nation would never turn on its people, yet we have seen in these comments how someone who works within the law enforcement community will turn their back on individual rights and liberty and side with the government simply because “the law says so.”
“The law” is not an object of worship, or an authority unto itself. It is a tool, just like govt. We use it to protect our INDIVIDUAL rights and liberty. If it does not do so, then it is not “law,” it is usurpation and the tool of tyranny. And when we allow ourselves to stand in defense of usurpation and tyranny, we are not “law abiding,” we are an enemy of our neighbors and our nation.
And thus, though we may be “good” people with intentions of doing the right thing, we suddenly find ourselves on the outside of the barbed wire looking in on those who are condemned for opposing the government’s authority. This is why Adolf Hitler once said:
The pattern is repeating: both here on the RNL and in our nation as a whole. What side will you be on?
You know, B., you and my husband are becoming like two peas in a pod (yes, it’s very frightening). This morning he says to me, this report of what happened to Zimmerman is on (believe it or not) ABC NEWS! You should now understand what I’ve been saying all along: The guy was just doing the right thing and got pummeled. Don’t you find it interesting that the media uses Martin’s first name and Zimmerman’s last name? Are you getting it, Kelly?
Sorry, luv. I’m stil with FL. on this. I know I’m not a great mathematician, but, INHO, crime = punishment. The two of you are making excuses for this fella.
HE COMMITTED NO CRIME!!!
When defending your life is a crime, you have no right to your life.
When defending your home is a crime, you have no right to your home.
When defending your neighborhood is a crime, you have no right to community.
If I have no right to community, I OWE YOU NO COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR LAWS! WE ARE AT WAR!
You and FC and EVERYONE who makes your argument is arguing AGAINST society – against right. That makes you WRONG – PERIOD!
You are defending the path to tyranny. I will never join. I will resist you as long as I have breath in my lungs. And I will not apologize or back down from this position – ever.
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
George Mason, Virgina Declaration of Rights – June 12, 1776
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776
You can’t have it both ways, black. Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong, merely walking through a neighborhood where he was in residence, in the United States of America, as his rights are guaranteed. He was confronted by a self-imposed “guardian of the neighborhood” with no legal authority, carrying a 9mm handgun. He was shot and killed.
Zimmerman should have been arrested, posted bail, and hired a defense attorney. If he was (or is) innocent, the courts would/will decided, not the Sanford Police Department.
As it stands today, and when Martin was shot, we do not need “papers”, identification, or passes, to travel from place to place. When it gets to the point that you can’t walk down your own street without a self-proclaimed “neighborhood watch captain” stopping you and questioning your intentions, then truly, your side as become as bad as the liberal brainwashers you are railing against.
I am NOT trying to have it both ways. I am being PERFECTLY consistent – for BOTH men. You are only doing so for one – the one that all current reports suggest was actually the one in the wrong.
True. But Zimmerman had the same right.
Your use of the prejudicial terminology is an OPINION! And he has the right to carry that weapon – it’s called the 2nd Amendment (just one example of how the law can be and is often WRONG!)
Convenient that you leave out the assault and battery and use of deadly force that led to his being shot. At the point he started slamming Zimmerman’s head into the concrete, he became the wrong-doer and Zimmerman had every right to defend his life. What’s more, if Trayvon were the saint you want to make him out to be, he wouldn’t have attacked Zimmerman, HE WOULD HAVE CALLED 911 AND WAITED!!!
When it gets to the point that you can’t walk down your own street without a self-proclaimed “neighborhood watch captain” stopping you and questioning your intentions, then truly, your side as become as bad as the liberal brainwashers you are railing against.
NO! When you start demanding that NO ONE can do what Zimmerman did, when we must ALL wait for the Gestapo to ask people for their papers, then YOU HAVE CEDED OUR RIGHTS! That makes you an enemy of the Constitution, FC.
I understand your inclination to obey the law without question, but you cannot do that. You MUST defend the law, and our process – AT THIS POINT – says Zimmerman is INNOCENT. Until a jury says otherwise, you are on the wrong side of right – period.
” . . . the one that all current reports suggest was actually the one in the wrong.” LMAO! That, my friend, is patently ridiculous.
1 — Apparently there is a witness who has said Treyvon attacked Zimmerman – just like Zimmerman claims.
2 — Zimmerman was injured, and his injuries apparently matched the story he and the witness told police.
3 — The police initially cleared Zimmerman and, to date, it does not appear there are charges pending. Had it not been for the media, it is likely that would have been the end of this.
So, where is the supposed “convicting evidence” against Zimmerman other than your want to deny him HIS NATURAL RIGHTS!?
“Your use of the prejudicial terminology is an OPINION! And he has the right to carry that weapon – it’s called the 2nd Amendment (just one example of how the law can be and is often WRONG!)”
Zimmerman’s term, not mine.
I never said he didn’t have the right to carry. He doesn’t have the “right” to confront a law-abiding citizen with his 9mm. Show me where he does.
You are using it in a manner intended to imply he is a vigilante. Unless and until convicted, you should be careful of doing that as – if you turn out to be wrong – you have opened yourself to civil suit. I wonder whose rights you would then support were Zimmerman to be found innocent and then he sought to sue people such as yourself over the damage you’ve done to his character?
“You MUST defend the law, and our process – AT THIS POINT – says Zimmerman is INNOCENT. Until a jury says otherwise, . . . ”
Absolutely, and I do. Again, Zimmerman should have been arrested, allowed to make bail, and stand trial. The probable cause requirement was certainly met. It is the prosecutor’s responsibilty to PROVE him guilty. It is the defense attorney’s responsibilty to prove self defense and get him acquitted. That is the law. That is the process. Allowing Zimmerman to claim “self-defense” and be released by the SPD is not.
Not without reason to be arrested. The law allows for self-defense, and Zimmerman apparently had a corroborating witness. What you suggest is the assumption of guilt until finally proven guilty. If there was no wrong committed, there is no reason to book him in the first place. You are just declaring you know better than those law officials in that community charged with the responsibility of handling this case.
But I will change my mind. I agree: we need to arrest people for suspicion of committing a crime. Please report to the Sheriff’s office for booking, FC. We ALL break at least 5 laws every day and you need to be arrested until the DA proves it.
Until you appear in the news paper and can show us you are out on bail, I will read pure hypocrisy in your posts on this issue, FC. Not because I disagree, but because your reasoning is prejudicial and one-sided. In other words, everything the law is NOT supposed to be.
Didn’t Zimmerman say he got that n____r to the cops after he killed Trayvon? Didn’t the police tell Zimmerman not to follow the kid? Wasn’t Trayvon on the phone to his girlfriend, telling her that he was being followed? He was not in the neighborhood watch, he was not being robbed, his home was not in danger.
We don’t know all the details , B, on that point we agree. But the tenor of your argument seems to be that the dead teenager was the culprit, so where is your restraint on prejudging?
By the way, I just saw the video of Zimmerman at the police station, with no bruises or blood on him or his person.
My point is and always has been that we do not know the details and we simply cannot trust the media to provide them. They have an agenda – especially when it comes to stories such as this.
If I trust any media at all, it would be the local stories – but even then I do not place much stock in those reports. Still, the local news in the town where this happened seems to have supported Zimmerman’s side of the story, as did at least one witness. Why do we just assume the dead guy is correct and the live guy must be wrong? If we are “fair,” we need to consider both stories equally and follow the evidence and witnesses.
As for the youn man who was killed being a culprit or a victim: again, I DO NOT KNOW! I DO know this: many seem to blame Zimmerman for following the kid, but there is nothing illegal about that. I hear that was threatening, but no one is putting themselves in Zimmerman’s shoes. I have heard his neighborhood had suffered a rash of crime recently, so here Zimmerman is watching a large male in his neighborhood who he thought was suspicious, but HE was wrong to follow that guy though Martin was OK to behave in a manner that others might see as being on par with Zimmerman’s actions??? Be consistent, please.
Next, I heard that, after Zimmerman confronted him, Martin supposedly left, then doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. Not sure this is true, again, I am telling you I am hearing too many conflicting stories. So I am trying to reserve judgment. HOWEVER, even if Zimmerman DID act improperly, does that give Martin an excuse to break his nose and pummel his head into the cement? You say you see no evidence of it in the picture, but that was what the police reported happened – AND the witnesses said. SO, are they all lying now, or is the media? Now, IF this is true, how is it that Martin is still considered a “victim?”
Honestly, I think Zimmerman is in trouble. He is Hispanic, but he is being called white by nearly all sides here, and – in this nation today – that makes him guilty and excuses a modern day lynching. And judging by how quickly many here – even those in law enforcement – are judging this case when we have NO “hard” facts, I do not believe Zimmerman will get real justice now. I think he will be offered up as a sacrifice to those who feed on stirring racial hatred as a source of the power. I am often attacked as being anti-govt. and anti- LEO, but when I try to let local authorities do their job, I am attacked for not joining the mob. LOL, you people kill me. 🙂
ZImmerman may well be guilty, I’d just rather a jury tell me that. If that makes me a racist in some people’s minds, then I’d like them to look in the mirror – at the person who has the REAL problem.