Just read it.
Now to see just how civil things remain seeing justice prevail in this case. :-\
Smart jury that considered the evidence not the politics.
Bad situation for everyone involved however justice prevailed.
Quote from: Ramjet on July 13 2013 08:22:42 PM MDT
Smart jury that considered the evidence not the politics.
Bad situation for everyone involved however justice prevailed.
Pretty much my sentiments as well.
Quote from: The_Shadow on July 13 2013 08:16:22 PM MDT
Now to see just how civil things remain seeing justice prevail in this case. :-\
They rioting in Watts, yet?
I do hate to say this, but I believe that George Zimmerman will now be charged by the Obama Department of inJustice on a civil-rights charge. Do you remember the number of police officers (this was regarding the Rodney King fiasco) that were found not guilty by a jury in California? Those men were then charged by the feds and found guilty. Seems a lot like double jeopardy to me. This administration has shown that there is nothing that they will not do to get their way. And Sharpton, and Jackson, and the NAALCP have already said that they are going to ask Obama and Holder to do this.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 14 2013 06:34:48 AM MDT
Quote from: The_Shadow on July 13 2013 08:16:22 PM MDT
Now to see just how civil things remain seeing justice prevail in this case. :-\
They rioting in Watts, yet?
Trashed a police car in oakland
Quote from: LarryNC on July 14 2013 10:15:09 AM MDT
I do hate to say this, but I believe that George Zimmerman will now be charged by the Obama Department of inJustice on a civil-rights charge. Do you remember the number of police officers (this was regarding the Rodney King fiasco) that were found not guilty by a jury in California? Those men were then charged by the feds and found guilty. Seems a lot like double jeopardy to me. This administration has shown that there is nothing that they will not do to get their way. And Sharpton, and Jackson, and the NAALCP have already said that they are going to ask Obama and Holder to do this.
The DOJ and FBI have already concluded investigations, over a year ago, pre-trial. In Florida, once self defense is established, by means of court trial or the state's determination (pre-trial), civil immunity is granted. There's nothing left, but the media and race baiters. Now, with an acquittal, any chance of another investigation, let alone any indictment, is less likely. Sure, they'll waste a few million/billion tax dollars to tell you that.
There were some riots in various locations...
Illegal criminal activity and destruction of public property doesn't change the outcome one way or the other! However it just shows peoples ignorance through this expression of hatred toward people in general! Very sad! >:(
Quote from: LarryNC on July 14 2013 10:15:09 AM MDT
I do hate to say this, but I believe that George Zimmerman will now be charged by the Obama Department of inJustice on a civil-rights charge. Do you remember the number of police officers (this was regarding the Rodney King fiasco) that were found not guilty by a jury in California? Those men were then charged by the feds and found guilty. Seems a lot like double jeopardy to me. This administration has shown that there is nothing that they will not do to get their way. And Sharpton, and Jackson, and the NAALCP have already said that they are going to ask Obama and Holder to do this.
If you are talking the cops that beat Rodney King....they WERE guilty! Don't know how they got off the state charges.
I agree.
Yea the Civil Rights charges may be pending but that in my Opinion would spell doom for Obama and his desired legacy because they surely would loose.
YES, but is this not the MO / SOP of all Poor Losers
This isn't a best 2 out of 3 deal is it ? ! ?
Will they keep throwing more and more out until something sticks ?
If so, then use the outcome of that Trail to again attack Gun Rights
Quote from: DM1906 on July 14 2013 11:58:13 AM MDT
Quote from: LarryNC on July 14 2013 10:15:09 AM MDT
I do hate to say this, but I believe that George Zimmerman will now be charged by the Obama Department of inJustice on a civil-rights charge. Do you remember the number of police officers (this was regarding the Rodney King fiasco) that were found not guilty by a jury in California? Those men were then charged by the feds and found guilty. Seems a lot like double jeopardy to me. This administration has shown that there is nothing that they will not do to get their way. And Sharpton, and Jackson, and the NAALCP have already said that they are going to ask Obama and Holder to do this.
The DOJ and FBI have already concluded investigations, over a year ago, pre-trial. In Florida, once self defense is established, by means of court trial or the state's determination (pre-trial), civil immunity is granted. There's nothing left, but the media and race baiters. Now, with an acquittal, any chance of another investigation, let alone any indictment, is less likely. Sure, they'll waste a few million/billion tax dollars to tell you that.
Not really. Civil Immunity has to do with a Civil Lawsuit ($$$), it has nothing to do with a Federal charge of Civil Rights violations (Hate Crime).
The DOJ has come out with a statement that they will indeed investigate GZ further for Civil Rights violations.
"
Experienced federal prosecutors will [now] determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction, and whether federal prosecution is appropriate in accordance with the Department's policy governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/14/naacp-asking-obama-administration-to-pursue-zimmerman-civil-case/#ixzz2Z7f24oZx
What do you think that means? It means exactly what it says, the previous investigators were not experienced enough to get the job done. Obama and Holder will
now send in the big guns and find all kinds of new evidence( false and manufactured I might add) proving that GZ was a racist and should be tried under the "Hate Crime" statues.
exactly this is political witch hunt the Obama Administration has lost on so many Gun issues already they are trying to save face and this being made high profile by the politics is the opportunity for something to stick. But I suspect the Poltical Advisors to Obama will not pursue and let it play out as Civil Lawsuit because as the cases could run concurrent that would be a bad strategy. Either way it is time for us take back this Country and stop the Liberal from continuing to put unreasonable restriction on our ability to protect ourselves or our families and for them to stop taking our hard earned money and giving to those who neither want to work or even try to work.
Quote from: Ramjet on July 14 2013 07:52:42 PM MDT
Yea the Civil Rights charges may be pending but that in my Opinion would spell doom for Obama and his desired legacy because they surely would loose.
So probably thought the Rodney King beaters, but they WERE found guilty.
Quote from: DenStinett on July 14 2013 08:03:15 PM MDT
YES, but is this not the MO / SOP of all Poor Losers
This isn't a best 2 out of 3 deal is it ? ! ?
Will they keep throwing more and more out until something sticks ?
If so, then use the outcome of that Trail to again attack Gun Rights
DING! DING! DING! We have a Winner! :o
Quote from: Ramjet on July 14 2013 07:52:42 PM MDT
Yea the Civil Rights charges may be pending but that in my Opinion would spell doom for Obama and his desired legacy because they surely would loose.
Obama and Holder do not have to "win" to accomplish their objective. They will make an example of him. They will charge him, put him on trial and disrupt his life for years, win or loose, it doesn't matter.
This harassment my Obama and the Federal Government will be a sign and a
warning to all CCW holders and guns owners that The Same Thing Will Happen to You if You Dare to carry a firearm and use it to protect yourself and others.
It will be a "Show of Force" and a victory will not be needed to intimidate and to threaten.
questions:
Do you believe that you're life will not be disrupted if you use a gun for self defense if none of this happened?
Will that influence your choice to protect yourself or your family against the imminent or immediate threat of life or grave bodily harm?
Quote from: Ramjet on July 15 2013 10:35:59 AM MDT
questions:
Do you believe that you're life will not be disrupted if you use a gun for self defense if none of this happened?
Will that influence your choice to protect yourself or your family against the imminent or immediate threat of life or grave bodily harm?
No.
No.
Whoa dude, I think Zimmerman was GUILTY. But so was OJ.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 15 2013 12:45:28 PM MDT
Whoa dude, I think Zimmerman was GUILTY. But so was OJ.
Really? You think he was guilty of Murder for using his legal carry firearm to save his own life? Man this country is going down the toilet and fast.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 15 2013 12:45:28 PM MDT
Whoa dude, I think Zimmerman was GUILTY. ......
Just curious, but guilty of what?
He was NOT GUILTY.
Quote from: DM1906 on July 15 2013 02:06:39 PM MDT
Quote from: gandog56 on July 15 2013 12:45:28 PM MDT
Whoa dude, I think Zimmerman was GUILTY. ......
Just curious, but guilty of what?
I asked this question of a person today going off about the ''travesty of the judicial system''... I said, There was never a doubt Zimmerman shot him... I did not get a answer... :o :o Personal feelings have no place, the facts and proving them with out a shadow of doubt.
I am happy to see the jury followed the facts and NOT the bias media or government!
CW
This is an article that is well written by Herman Cain...
http://www.caintv.com/calm-reigns-black-americans-do (http://www.caintv.com/calm-reigns-black-americans-do)
The only thing with this whole thing is being a community watch possibly pursuing is really a bad thing. Perhaps the better thing to do is place the call as he did and left it to the Police to respond. Giving chase is kind of looking for trouble.
Quote from: Intercooler on July 15 2013 06:09:40 PM MDT
The only thing with this whole thing is being a community watch possibly pursuing is really a bad thing. Perhaps the better thing to do is place the call as he did and left it to the Police to respond. Giving chase is kind of looking for trouble.
He Did NOT give chase!
He ended up in the same area. Everything I read said he was tailing him or in the area with him. The initial phone call may have prevented the whole thing... if he left at that point.
It's all irrelevant. The "rules", whatever they were, changed when it went from verbal to physical. It was a completely NEW incident from that point forward, regardless of what occurred to spawn that moment.
And as said, there was no pursuit. There's a HUGE difference between pursuit, and follow/observe/report. He saw something, so he said something. That was his purpose for being there. There is ZERO evidence, observed, reported, recorded, or otherwise, that he made any attempt to follow once suggested it was not necessary. Even if he had, it's within the law, and still, very different from a "pursuit". According to the 9-1-1 recordings and his recall, 4 minutes elapsed from the time he lost sight of Martin, and they met again. Zimmerman was on the phone with 9-1-1, and Martin didn't go home.
Perhaps the country would be better served if the DOJ investigated itself as to it's actions in 'Fast & Furious' and Milwaukee, rather than focusing on an event better handled by local and state jurisdiction. Unless, of course, your purpose is deflection of attention from more important matters.
Inter cooler you need to get copy of the testimony then you will see it is not as the liberal media wants you to think the jury stuck to the facts.
Zimmerman had right to stop the threat he was in immediate and imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. His responsibility was to protect himself and the evidence was certainly convincing enough for the jury of 6 women 5 of them mothers to acquit Zimmerman. Those jurors heard all the evidence we can only use conjecture and opinion neither of which app carry the weight of that jury.
Quote from: DM1906 on July 15 2013 08:03:41 PM MDT
, and Martin didn't go home.
Exactly right
He was well ahead of Zimmerman, and in fact, Zimmerman had lost sight of Trayvon
He had more than enough time to make it home, and / or call the COPs himself
It is very sad, but Trayvon had all the control
If Trayvon hadn't made the wrong (conscience) choice to turn and fight, he'd still be alive today
Quote from: Intercooler on July 15 2013 07:26:16 PM MDT
He ended up in the same area. Everything I read said he was tailing him or in the area with him. The initial phone call may have prevented the whole thing... if he left at that point.
You read incorrect propaganda.
GZ did was he was asked to do. He was a "Neighborhood Watch" member and his job was to "Watch" his neighborhood and report to the police any suspicious persons or activity. This is what he did.
If you listen to the 911 tape (the original) the officer asked him, "where is he now" GZ took that to mean, get out of your vehicle and find out where TM was. That is what he did. When the officer realized what GZ was doing (looking for TM on foot) she said "you don't need to do that" He said "OK" and headed back to his vehicle where he was attacked.
He did exactly what he was asked to do. Watch his neighborhood, call 911, find "where is he know".
It's NOT illegal to follow someone, provided you are entitled to be where you are. It IS illegal to assault someone, and pound his head against a concrete slab ... THAT can get you shot.
Quote from: Mike_Fontenot on July 16 2013 08:39:33 AM MDT
It's NOT illegal to follow someone, provided you are entitled to be where you are. It IS illegal to assault someone, and pound his head against a concrete slab ... THAT can get you shot.
Not only is it NOT Illegal, it is what a "Neighborhood Watch" members is asked to do. "Watch" and Report.
Quote from: Ramjet on July 15 2013 08:30:33 PM MDT
Inter cooler you need to get copy of the testimony then you will see it is not as the liberal media wants you to think the jury stuck to the facts.
Zimmerman had right to stop the threat he was in immediate and imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. His responsibility was to protect himself and the evidence was certainly convincing enough for the jury of 6 women 5 of them mothers to acquit Zimmerman. Those jurors heard all the evidence we can only use conjecture and opinion neither of which app carry the weight of that jury.
All I can think here, was just how many BLACK people were on this jury? My guess is NONE! (I don't know, just guessing)
Quote from: gandog56 on July 16 2013 08:50:13 AM MDT
Quote from: Ramjet on July 15 2013 08:30:33 PM MDT
Inter cooler you need to get copy of the testimony then you will see it is not as the liberal media wants you to think the jury stuck to the facts.
Zimmerman had right to stop the threat he was in immediate and imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. His responsibility was to protect himself and the evidence was certainly convincing enough for the jury of 6 women 5 of them mothers to acquit Zimmerman. Those jurors heard all the evidence we can only use conjecture and opinion neither of which app carry the weight of that jury.
All I can think here, was just how many BLACK people were on this jury? My guess is NONE! (I don't know, just guessing)
If you actually payed attention to the case and the evidence you would know that there were no Black men on the Jury. They were all women, all six of them.
During the Jury selection there was one Black Male that was accepted by the DEFENSE, but was dismissed and rejected by the Prosecution. Yes, that's right, the Prosecution rejected the Black male from the jury.
Jessie Jackson made the same comment on one of the Left wing media outlets just the other day. That must be were you heard it, yes.
Something that you and Jessie fail to realize is that according to the CONSTITUTION the "Jury of Peers" is selected to represent the accused, George Zimmerman and not Travon as TM was not the one on trial.
Now that you know the Jury that found GZ Innocent was made up of all women, I'm guessing you would picture them like this. yes? After all, this whole trial was about racism on the part of GZ and not the facts right.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/steve4102/jury_zpscf93c5da.jpg)
This case should never have gone to trial, but once a 'special prosecutor' was assigned to 'investigate', it was no longer about self defense. It became an opportunity for the Obama administration to further divide this country through race, and to promote an agenda near and dear to Obama- GUN CONTROL! Obama's own comments, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon", and "We must find a way to put an end to gun violence" prove this.
GZ was tried in front of a jury of his peers and found innocent. That should be the end of it.
He was attacked and in fear,end of story.He was getting his ass handed to him.
That's what I meant when I said that this should never have gone to trial. It was an obvious case of self defense.
Quote from: pacapcop on July 16 2013 12:43:06 PM MDT
He was attacked and in fear,end of story.He was getting his ass handed to him.
So HE says. It worked, and of course they're rioting in L.A., beating people and looting stores. I knew that was going to happen!
Quote from: gandog56 on July 16 2013 02:50:32 PM MDT
Quote from: pacapcop on July 16 2013 12:43:06 PM MDT
He was attacked and in fear,end of story.He was getting his ass handed to him.
So HE says.It worked, and of course they're rioting in L.A., beating people and looting stores. I knew that was going to happen!
He did. The facts and evidence are consistent with his statement, and there are ZERO facts or evidence to indicate otherwise. Any other notion is pure speculation, not supported by anything. Possibilities and "what if's" are a long stretch to question the Constitutional liberties of any free American. Innocent, unless and until PROVED otherwise. It's the same process of justice you would suggest that is the reason for the riots. Ignore facts you don't like, make up your own where none exist, and convict according to what you think happened, and/or what you think would be popular with those who may support your political agenda. No different than the Salem witch hunts, or the Spanish Inquisition. Most countries in this world have this system of justice, and is one of the basic reasons THIS country exists, today.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 16 2013 02:50:32 PM MDT
Quote from: pacapcop on July 16 2013 12:43:06 PM MDT
He was attacked and in fear,end of story.He was getting his ass handed to him.
So HE says.
NO WRONG!! So says the
evidence and a Jury of HIS peers.
Quote from: Steve4102 on July 16 2013 09:22:03 AM MDT
Quote from: gandog56 on July 16 2013 08:50:13 AM MDT
Quote from: Ramjet on July 15 2013 08:30:33 PM MDT
Inter cooler you need to get copy of the testimony then you will see it is not as the liberal media wants you to think the jury stuck to the facts.
Zimmerman had right to stop the threat he was in immediate and imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. His responsibility was to protect himself and the evidence was certainly convincing enough for the jury of 6 women 5 of them mothers to acquit Zimmerman. Those jurors heard all the evidence we can only use conjecture and opinion neither of which app carry the weight of that jury.
All I can think here, was just how many BLACK people were on this jury? My guess is NONE! (I don't know, just guessing)
If you actually payed attention to the case and the evidence you would know that there were no Black men on the Jury. They were all women, all six of them.
During the Jury selection there was one Black Male that was accepted by the DEFENSE, but was dismissed and rejected by the Prosecution. Yes, that's right, the Prosecution rejected the Black male from the jury.
Jessie Jackson made the same comment on one of the Left wing media outlets just the other day. That must be were you heard it, yes.
Something that you and Jessie fail to realize is that according to the CONSTITUTION the "Jury of Peers" is selected to represent the accused, George Zimmerman and not Travon as TM was not the one on trial.
By "people" I meant men OR women. So are you saying black people cannot be a "peer" of Zimmerman? I say they CAN! And I am not black, so I am not biased that way.
I'm saying the Prosecution thought it best to not have any Black Males on this Jury. They must have been Racist.
I'm also saying that because you did not know the makeup of the Jury you also know absolutely nothing about the FACTS in this case. You are totally uninformed yet you feel you know the truth better than the Jury that sat through this entire event.
By claiming an innocent man Guilty without any real facts to back up your claim you place yourself on the same plain as the Looters and the Liars out their trying to make this case something that it was not.
Let's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.
What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.
QuoteLet's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious.
Let's just have you recap his story of events that were highly suspicious.
Please, I am awaiting your recap with of what actually happened with great anticipation. Don't forget to include where you acquired these FACTS.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 18 2013 08:53:37 AM MDT
Let's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.
What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.
So you admit not following but then espouse irrational opinion. Great!
I consider myself better informed (not necessarily "smarter") than anyone I've discussed this with. I watched the entire trial, mostly in real-time. Every second of it, as painful as it was much of the time. No other person, here, there, or anywhere, who I know or know of, watched (or read) much more than what the MSM released during newscasts or commentary shows. What I didn't watch live were complete replays.
What I've found, discussing this with friends, acquaintances, and strangers (such as here and other discussion forums) is, it is obviously clear when someone enters the conversation who is either uninformed, or worse, misinformed. This applies to nearly EVERY newscaster (reader), and their "experts".
The jury was chosen and accepted by both, the prosecution and the defense, from a very large pool of possible jurors. There weren't any black men ultimately on the jury because there weren't ANY not already decided on the verdict, excessively emotionally motivated, and/or who weren't "too informed" with the case. NONE. Black women, the same. The same applied to most white men. This lead to only one reasonable result: 6 white women (one may have had an "Hispanic ethnicity appearance"). In the end, 6 women were the only reasonably "fair" jurors remaining. Like it or not, that WAS the reality. Insisting that the jury should have been "politically correct" would have likely ensured a hung jury. I'm not saying, at all, there are no reasonably objective "other than mostly white women" jurors, only that there were almost none in the jury pool at that time.
To anyone who would suggest there was no justice in this trial, they are correct. Absolutely. But, not for the reasons most would argue.
Quote from: DM1906 on July 18 2013 01:32:40 PM MDT
To anyone who would suggest there was no justice in this trial, they are correct. Absolutely. But, not for the reasons most would argue.
I take it from your last statement, you do not fully agree with the verdict ( ? )
Quote from: DenStinett on July 18 2013 02:21:45 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on July 18 2013 01:32:40 PM MDT
To anyone who would suggest there was no justice in this trial, they are correct. Absolutely. But, not for the reasons most would argue.
I take it from your last statement, you do not fully agree with the verdict ( ? )
I do not fully agree with the verdict, in that there should have never been a verdict to agree or disagree with. The injustice was not the result of the trial. The injustice is the malicious prosecution, concluded with the verdict, and the injustice currently in progress by the USDOJ.
Quote from: DM1906 on July 18 2013 03:18:07 PM MDT
Quote from: DenStinett on July 18 2013 02:21:45 PM MDT
I do not fully agree with the verdict, in that there should have never been a verdict to agree or disagree with. The injustice was not the result of the trial. The injustice is the malicious prosecution, concluded with the verdict, and the injustice currently in progress by the USDOJ.
Copy that
Your OP just through me at first
Quote from: DenStinett on July 18 2013 03:20:58 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on July 18 2013 03:18:07 PM MDT
Quote from: DenStinett on July 18 2013 02:21:45 PM MDT
I do not fully agree with the verdict, in that there should have never been a verdict to agree or disagree with. The injustice was not the result of the trial. The injustice is the malicious prosecution, concluded with the verdict, and the injustice currently in progress by the USDOJ.
Copy that
Your OP just through me at first
Sorry about that, but it was my intent, afterall. To sum it up simply, the verdict was the fruit of the poison tree. The verdict is irrelevant. To those who feel it should have been a guilty verdict, it's entirely irrelevant. The state's attorney didn't seek an indictment from the Grand Jury, because they KNEW they wouldn't get one. That, in itself, is malicious.
QuoteWhat I've found, discussing this with friends, acquaintances, and strangers (such as here and other discussion forums) is, it is obviously clear when someone enters the conversation who is either uninformed, or worse, misinformed. This applies to nearly EVERY newscaster (reader), and their "experts".
I will disagree with this just a little.
These so called "News" persons were at the trial or had their People at the trial. They saw and heard the same thing you and I did. They are NOT Misinformed nor are they Uninformed, they are actually Well informed and totally aware of the facts in this case, they just choose to ignore them and to twist them for Political gain.
Hell, think about it, they twisted the facts with their Doctored 911 tape only minutes after the shooting, no way they are going to "Report" the truth in this case now, the truth serves no purpose to them.
I won't disagree with that. However, that is malicious, just the same. Their actions had a significant affect with Constitutional justice, which in turn, caused a free American citizen's rights, as defined in The Bill of Rights, to be suppressed. The damage caused by that first (malicious) release is irreparable. Had they reported accurately the first time, and every time thereafter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The First Amendment to The Constitution protects our right to free speech, but it does not protect any right to malicious, untruthful speech. No different than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, IMO.
+1 you guys
Quote from: Ramjet on July 18 2013 09:41:30 AM MDT
Quote from: gandog56 on July 18 2013 08:53:37 AM MDT
Let's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.
What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.
So you admit not following but then espouse irrational opinion. Great!
Irrational? You want to start name calling on this board?
Irrational ???
Isn't that a bit strong? Are you this way with ANYBODY who disagrees with YOUR opinion?
By the way, I see the DOJ has told the state to not return the seized evidence to Zimmerman while they study filing a civil rights charge. So apparently the Government is leaning in MY direction. Are they irrational, too?
Wait, don't answer that.....because they always ARE! :))
Irrational, Uninformed, Misinformed, Brainwashed, Pick one they all fit.
BTW, Still waiting for you to recap Mr Zimmerman's story of events that were "Highly Suspicious". Don't forget to include where you got your "Story of Events".
DM1906,
Did Zimmerman's neighbor who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman testify? And if so, could he actually identify who was on top?
Quote from: DAVIDF on July 19 2013 10:28:34 AM MDT
DM1906,
Did Zimmerman's neighbor who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman testify? And if so, could he actually identify who was on top?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/28/eyewitness-describes-martin-zimmerman-struggle/
Video.
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/key-eyewitness-testifies-in-george-zimmerman-trial/
Steve4102,
Thanks. That is what I was looking for.
Ill say it once and ill say it again.We will have another ammo crises like the one were trying to get out of.This administration is full speed ahead.Im accumalating as much as my funds can withstand bursting away.Im not drinking the kool aid.
Quote from: pacapcop on July 19 2013 01:20:52 PM MDT
Ill say it once and ill say it again.We will have another ammo crises like the one were trying to get out of.This administration is full speed ahead.Im accumalating as much as my funds can withstand bursting away.Im not drinking the kool aid.
Sadly you are not far off the mark
The Administration will be using this Case to Ramp-Up their Anti-Gun Bu[[$#!+ again
Quote from: gandog56 on July 18 2013 07:49:02 PM MDTIrrational? You want to start name calling on this board?
Irrational ???
Isn't that a bit strong? Are you this way with ANYBODY who disagrees with YOUR opinion?
By the way, I see the DOJ has told the state to not return the seized evidence to Zimmerman while they study filing a civil rights charge. So apparently the Government is leaning in MY direction. Are they irrational, too?
Wait, don't answer that.....because they always ARE! :))
Alrighty then. I was away for a while but just read all the responses in the thread.
The first thing I want to say is that it was good to see Zimmerman acquitted. My feeling based on evidence.
The second thing I want to say is actually a question; Since when is
Irrational a term recognized as a personal name?!? Regardless, irrational or not, you clearly have no opinion that agrees with any evidence in the case.
As far as not returning Zimmerman's gun back to him, this is in no way abnormal, acquittal or not. Some people not found guilty of an appropriate crime never get their gun back from what I understand. Besides that, even that is irrelevant as I see no reason why Zimmerman can not go buy a replacement immediately. If I'm wrong on any of this based on FACTS, please clue me in.
You asked if the government is irrational and clearly suggested they aren't based on agreement between your thoughts and theirs. Two things; The idea of two different parties agreeing doesn't necessarily prove either correct in their assessment of anything. And, evidently much of government, including the individuals who make it up,
IS/ARE IRRATIONAL regarding many aspects of way of life in a
free society. Disagreeing with that no doubt shows elements of socialism, fascism, communism, and more.
Earlier you said;
Quote from: gandog56 on July 18 2013 08:53:37 AM MDTLet's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.
What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.
Some have touched on this already. In regard to suggesting the prosecution didn't want a black male on the jury; WHAT? Where did you get any understanding whatsoever that the prosecution did not want a black male on the jury??? NOBODY that knows any fact ever suggested such a thing, let alone the prosecution themselves. It is as you mentioned evidently clear that you have not followed the case too much. And court sessions on TV were far from the only place facts of the case were available to anyone who reads a newspaper or has internet available. My question is; How is it you ever felt you had justification to intelligently comment toward the overall outcome of the case, in amongst a group that were clearly following the FACTS of the case, admitting yourself you had little clue what was or wasn't actual fact/evidence to support what a reasonable outcome of the case should or shouldn't be?
As for concern about riots and other mayhem; What about it? I think that concerns any person not choosing to riot or create whatever mayhem. At the same time there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than law enforcement doing their best to control it. Are you suggesting there wouldn't have been some kind of outcry regardless which way the jury decided this case? It really makes no sense you brought it up in context of everything else you said.
Here are some facts of the case to help you understand the jury's ultimate decision to acquit G. Zimmerman:
TM chose to engage physical conflict to the extent of actual fighting on GZ.
TM probably did break GZ's nose and was on top of GZ bashing GZ's head into a concrete sidewalk.
GZ was scared for his life and repeatedly called out for help.
When no help showed up GZ was able to get his gun and shoot TM.
TM was on top of, over the top of, GZ when GZ fired the shot that killed TM.
GZ was not racist.
GZ was generally a standup guy toward his neighborhood and others in general.
The 911 call made by GZ agrees with GZ's recollection of what happened to the extent the 911 call could.
The phone call TM had been engaged in does not go against anything GZ said happened.
And of course there is plenty of other supporting evidence that GZ was justified in ultimately shooting TM.
What would be awesome is if the incident never escalated to a death.
What would be awesome is if TM would have just continued home.
BUT, hindsight is 20/20, and what happened did happen.
Such is life, just not always resulting in an untimely death that in this case never needed to happen in the 1st place had a few simple scenarios been ever so slightly different. And then of course there exist all the wrongful deaths that happen daily in this country and almost nobody says a peep. I for one see something wrong with that picture, especially for those that individually or collectively have the power to make serious dents in the chaos, but either choose not to or even worse add to the chaos.
Quote from: DAVIDF on July 19 2013 10:28:34 AM MDT
DM1906,
Did Zimmerman's neighbor who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman testify? And if so, could he actually identify who was on top?
Yes, and yes.
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 05:04:57 PM MDT
Quote from: gandog56 on July 18 2013 07:49:02 PM MDTIrrational? You want to start name calling on this board?
Irrational ???
Isn't that a bit strong? Are you this way with ANYBODY who disagrees with YOUR opinion?
By the way, I see the DOJ has told the state to not return the seized evidence to Zimmerman while they study filing a civil rights charge. So apparently the Government is leaning in MY direction. Are they irrational, too?
Wait, don't answer that.....because they always ARE! :))
Alrighty then. I was away for a while but just read all the responses in the thread.
The first thing I want to say is that it was good to see Zimmerman acquitted. My feeling based on evidence.
The second thing I want to say is actually a question; Since when is Irrational a term recognized as a personal name?!? Regardless, irrational or not, you clearly have no opinion that agrees with any evidence in the case.
As far as not returning Zimmerman's gun back to him, this is in no way abnormal, acquittal or not. Some people not found guilty of an appropriate crime never get their gun back from what I understand. Besides that, even that is irrelevant as I see no reason why Zimmerman can not go buy a replacement immediately. If I'm wrong on any of this based on FACTS, please clue me in.
You asked if the government is irrational and clearly suggested they aren't based on agreement between your thoughts and theirs. Two things; The idea of two different parties agreeing doesn't necessarily prove either correct in their assessment of anything. And, evidently much of government, including the individuals who make it up, IS/ARE IRRATIONAL regarding many aspects of way of life in a free society. Disagreeing with that no doubt shows elements of socialism, fascism, communism, and more.
Earlier you said;
Quote from: gandog56 on July 18 2013 08:53:37 AM MDTLet's just say I found his story of the events highly suspicious. And the prosecution didn't want any black males? That sounds stupid, since they would probably be more than likely to convict. No, I haven't followed the case too much. Stupid court sessions on TV don't thrill me.
What concerns me more is I KNEW it would cause the problems in LA that DID occur. Yeah, beating white people, looting, and setting places on fire is a good response to what you consider a bad court decision? I sure don't see how it can help doing so.
Some have touched on this already. In regard to suggesting the prosecution didn't want a black male on the jury; WHAT? Where did you get any understanding whatsoever that the prosecution did not want a black male on the jury??? NOBODY that knows any fact ever suggested such a thing, let alone the prosecution themselves. It is as you mentioned evidently clear that you have not followed the case too much. And court sessions on TV were far from the only place facts of the case were available to anyone who reads a newspaper or has internet available. My question is; How is it you ever felt you had justification to intelligently comment toward the overall outcome of the case, in amongst a group that were clearly following the FACTS of the case, admitting yourself you had little clue what was or wasn't actual fact/evidence to support what a reasonable outcome of the case should or shouldn't be?
As for concern about riots and other mayhem; What about it? I think that concerns any person not choosing to riot or create whatever mayhem. At the same time there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than law enforcement doing their best to control it. Are you suggesting there wouldn't have been some kind of outcry regardless which way the jury decided this case? It really makes no sense you brought it up in context of everything else you said.
Here are some facts of the case to help you understand the jury's ultimate decision to acquit G. Zimmerman:
TM chose to engage physical conflict to the extent of actual fighting on GZ.
TM probably did break GZ's nose and was on top of GZ bashing GZ's head into a concrete sidewalk.
GZ was scared for his life and repeatedly called out for help.
When no help showed up GZ was able to get his gun and shoot TM.
TM was on top of, over the top of, GZ when GZ fired the shot that killed TM.
GZ was not racist.
GZ was generally a standup guy toward his neighborhood and others in general.
The 911 call made by GZ agrees with GZ's recollection of what happened to the extent the 911 call could.
The phone call TM had been engaged in does not go against anything GZ said happened.
And of course there is plenty of other supporting evidence that GZ was justified in ultimately shooting TM.
What would be awesome is if the incident never escalated to a death.
What would be awesome is if TM would have just continued home.
BUT, hindsight is 20/20, and what happened did happen.
Such is life, just not always resulting in an untimely death that in this case never needed to happen in the 1st place had a few simple scenarios been ever so slightly different. And then of course there exist all the wrongful deaths that happen daily in this country and almost nobody says a peep. I for one see something wrong with that picture, especially for those that individually or collectively have the power to make serious dents in the chaos, but either choose not to or even worse add to the chaos.
So what's your point? You called MY opinion irrational....I didn't do anything to deserve that except disagree with you. I still think he may have been guilty as hell. You obviously strongly disagree, but I'm not irrational. At least I hope not, since I got my CCW not too long ago. 8)
That was the first I posted in this thread. Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before. Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?
(http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr359/seroberts1/obummernhood_zpsff415f0f.jpg) (http://s499.photobucket.com/user/seroberts1/media/obummernhood_zpsff415f0f.jpg.html)
The real pandering thug ..
Quote from: gandog56 on July 19 2013 08:19:12 PM MDT
I still think he may have been guilty as hell
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 08:23:14 PM MDT
Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?
Yeah, I too would have to ask;
"Facts, Evidence, Proof....Anything ? ? ?"
And opinions don't count ! ! !
Quote from: DeltaSteve on July 19 2013 08:26:09 PM MDT
(http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr359/seroberts1/obummernhood_zpsff415f0f.jpg)
"This could be me thirty (some odd) years ago"
Too late ! ! !
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 08:23:14 PM MDT
That was the first I posted in this thread. Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before. Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?
I already said...his version doesn't ring true to me. I mean what I think doesn't mean you have to agree, but irrational? Let's just say I am VERY offended by that.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 19 2013 08:40:00 PM MDT
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 08:23:14 PM MDT
That was the first I posted in this thread. Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before. Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?
I already said...his version doesn't ring true to me. I mean what I think doesn't mean you have to agree, but irrational? Let's just say I am VERY offended by that.
When you make a comment that is evidently incorrect, how is that not irrational? It's not even opinion at that point. If I say I'm of the opinion my 10mm gun shoots 9mm ammo without any modification, yet it is not true as evidence shows, but I still say I believe it, would I not be considered irrational in that line of thought? That's akin to what you've suggested earlier in this thread.
What part of Zimmerman's claim to what happened feels hokey to you?
QuoteYeah, I too would have to ask;
"Facts, Evidence, Proof....Anything ? ? ?"
QuoteWhat part of Zimmerman's claim to what happened feels hokey to you?
QuoteWhy maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?
I have asked him this twice, you guys three more times, he has still not even attempted to answer. Why, because he has no answer or fact to back up his "opinion". I gotta think he got his "opinion" from CNN, Twitter or Facebook, cuz he sure as hell has NO real facts in this case. No Facts, only and Opinion, scary stuff right there.
QuoteI'm not irrational. At least I hope not, since I got my CCW not too long ago.
Now that some funny sh%$& Right there. You with a Carry Permit? What the hell do you indent to do with it, act tuff and scare people with your carry piece. You sure as hell better not use it.
Better yet you better not even load it, that way when a 17 year Black Male is pounding knots on your head you will resist the urge to Defend Yourself with your firearm knowing you would be guilty of Murder.
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 09:13:32 PM MDT
Quote from: gandog56 on July 19 2013 08:40:00 PM MDT
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 08:23:14 PM MDT
That was the first I posted in this thread. Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before. Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?
I already said...his version doesn't ring true to me. I mean what I think doesn't mean you have to agree, but irrational? Let's just say I am VERY offended by that.
When you make a comment that is evidently incorrect, how is that not irrational? It's not even opinion at that point. If I say I'm of the opinion my 10mm gun shoots 9mm ammo without any modification, yet it is not true as evidence shows, but I still say I believe it, would I not be considered irrational in that line of thought? That's akin to what you've suggested earlier in this thread.
What part of Zimmerman's claim to what happened feels hokey to you?
Because it may NOT be incorrect....that's the reason that pops right up. It seems to just be irrational because you disagree with it. You omnipotent or something? Everybody HAS to agree with you or they're just Loony Tunes?
Quote from: gandog56 on July 20 2013 10:58:13 AM MDT
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 09:13:32 PM MDT
Quote from: gandog56 on July 19 2013 08:40:00 PM MDT
Quote from: REDLINE on July 19 2013 08:23:14 PM MDT
That was the first I posted in this thread. Therefore you couldn't have disagreed with me before. Why maybe guilty (George Zimmerman) as hell?
I already said...his version doesn't ring true to me. I mean what I think doesn't mean you have to agree, but irrational? Let's just say I am VERY offended by that.
When you make a comment that is evidently incorrect, how is that not irrational? It's not even opinion at that point. If I say I'm of the opinion my 10mm gun shoots 9mm ammo without any modification, yet it is not true as evidence shows, but I still say I believe it, would I not be considered irrational in that line of thought? That's akin to what you've suggested earlier in this thread.
What part of Zimmerman's claim to what happened feels hokey to you?
Because it may NOT be incorrect....that's the reason that pops right up.
What part "may not" be correct? What is "pops right up"? Would you care to rationalize your theory? I'm curious.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 20 2013 10:58:13 AM MDTBecause it may NOT be incorrect...
What may not be incorrect?
OK guys, the last two posts asked him the same question for the sixth and seventh time. He isn't going to answer it, he has no answer, Liberals do not deal in facts, only feelings and opinions.
Hey Gdog, enjoy that permit. Just don't ever use your firearm for self defense, you will be guilty of Murder.
I'm done with him, you guys carry on.
I hear ya.
Is there a way to put someone on "ignore" on this forum? I can't deal with Liberals and I may just get myself banned if I continue to do so.
Quote from: Steve4102 on July 20 2013 02:56:52 PM MDT
Is there a way to put someone on "ignore" on this forum? I can't deal with Liberals and I may just get myself banned if I continue to do so.
Yeah
Under Profile
Account settings
Under Modify Profile
At the bottom of the drop-down is what you're looking for
Quote from: DenStinett on July 20 2013 03:02:48 PM MDT
Quote from: Steve4102 on July 20 2013 02:56:52 PM MDT
Is there a way to put someone on "ignore" on this forum? I can't deal with Liberals and I may just get myself banned if I continue to do so.
Yeah
Under Profile
Account settings
Under Modify Profile
At the bottom of the drop-down is what you're looking for
Thanks, done and ignored. Now on with the show!
Quote from: Steve4102 on July 20 2013 03:59:40 PM MDT
Quote from: DenStinett on July 20 2013 03:02:48 PM MDT
Quote from: Steve4102 on July 20 2013 02:56:52 PM MDT
Is there a way to put someone on "ignore" on this forum? I can't deal with Liberals and I may just get myself banned if I continue to do so.
Yeah
Under Profile
Account settings
Under Modify Profile
At the bottom of the drop-down is what you're looking for
Thanks, done and ignored. Now on with the show!
Thank you and thank God......Bless you DenStinett. That guys been driving me crazy :-\
LOL...
Did any of you here Obummer the otherday?
He was speaking out about the tryal and how things might have been different where Travon White... He should keep his piehole shut and NOT incite folks. Thats all his comments will do.
He is correct, tho. Because Travon would have quite likely, have been at home or on a date or doing home work but not lurking around after dark where he should not have been... :o ::) ::) Perception can be reality and one who looks guilty will first be judged that way. A SMART person will not put them selves in such a situation. Just sayin'
CW
It's Trevon's own fault this happened in the first place by not going straight home and then attacking Zimmerman and more or less trying to kill him. It could have very well been Zimmerman that was killed by having his head bashed repeatedly on the concrete. I believe the trial was fair as well as the outcome, Zimmerman was fighting for his life imo.
Below are some FBI Stats I ran across that are quite interesting. Why don't they list these stats on the nightly news, which would put a lot of things into perspective.
http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.html
Bases on all available evidence, I agree. Tragic, but facts are facts.
But why isn't the President jacked-up about Benghazi >:( , Four honorable men in service to our country were murdered there ????
Quote from: DeltaSteve on July 20 2013 05:45:30 PM MDT
But why isn't the President jacked-up about Benghazi >:( , Four honorable men in service to our country were murdered there ????
That issue leads directly back to his Administration
Can't have that now....Can WE ? ? ?
Quote from: DeltaSteve on July 20 2013 05:45:30 PM MDTBut why isn't the President jacked-up about Benghazi >:( , Four honorable men in service to our country were murdered there ????
It seems when people die the President only cares when the dead can be used in an attempt to forward his communist agendas.
Just think, still over 3 years of the Obama Regime to go. ::) Assuming the USA is still the USA after the +3 years are expired, I'm worried about who we might get next since I didn't think there was any way he would get in for a second term.
Quote from: REDLINE on July 20 2013 06:15:48 PM MDT
Quote from: DeltaSteve on July 20 2013 05:45:30 PM MDTBut why isn't the President jacked-up about Benghazi >:( , Four honorable men in service to our country were murdered there ????
It seems when people die the President only cares when the dead can be used in an attempt to forward his communist agendas.
Just think, still over 3 years of the Obama Regime to go. ::) Assuming the USA is still the USA after the +3 years are expired, I'm worried about who we might get next since I didn't think there was any way he would get in for a second term.
Second term ? ? ?
Try a third and a fourth
B'HO (and his Cronies) is looking to abolish the 22nd Amendment before his term is up
http://www.dailysilvernews.com/presidential-term-limit-debate-should-the-22-amendment-be-abolished/2645/
Quote from: DenStinett on July 20 2013 06:22:37 PM MDTSecond term ? ? ?
Try a third and a fourth
B'HO (and his Cronies) is looking to abolish the 22nd Amendment before his term is up
http://www.dailysilvernews.com/presidential-term-limit-debate-should-the-22-amendment-be-abolished/2645/
I remember when Clinton was contemplating the same. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC was looking to do the same too (NYC allows a maximum of 3 consecutive 4 year terms, he's on the 3rd time around right now).
If he gets his way......
"B'HO the First"
"Allah save King B'HO" :o
NO $#!+....Color me GONE ! ! !
Obama and Company through Hilary under the Bus to pave the way for Michelle Obama in 2016.
If you think it was bad in 2008 with all the young brain dead first time voters pisssing all over themselves rushing to the voting booth to vote for the first Black President, just wait and see how bad it gets when they have the opportunity to vote for the first Black Woman for President.
They will be lined up as far as the eye can see.
This country had it's last viable chance with Ron Paul, weather you agreed with him or not. It's over. Anyone who believes in the Constitution in all it's splendor is now an enemy. But this country's demise was started along time ago, a collaboration of sinister motives by the TPTB. "Truth is Treason, In The Valley of Lies"
It's certainly difficult to see it any other way.
(http://wallpapersus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/freedom-ron-paul.jpg)
(http://wallpoper.com/images/00/41/47/83/ron-paul_00414783.jpg)
I found this interesting and informative...AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching
Just heard that Zimmerman and another person witnessed a bad wreck and the two pulled the family of four out of the vehicle to safety
YEAH, what a $#!+ head ! ! ! :P
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594906/george-zimmerman-helps-save-family-from-overturned-suv/
Found to be innocent by a jury or their piers, this is what we have all agreed to live by, more or less, right? NOW if it was guilty then birds would be singing and flowers would be blooming and they would be giving away cotton-candy and good ole choke-a-cola. BUT, our system says, "Prove-IT" beyond a reasonable doubt and they couldn't even do that. Its like IF it goes our way then its ok but if not then, WELL BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! Folks, go home and accept the system you so cheerfully accepted when it was possible to have them thrown in prison for life but instead are stomping around like spoiled brats that didn't get your way, I would think folks are tired of these childish rants! I know I am. Accept it and GO in peace.
DarkCloud
Quote from: DenStinett on July 23 2013 12:05:28 AM MDT
Just heard that Zimmerman and another person witnessed a bad wreck and the two pulled the family of four out of the vehicle to safety
YEAH, what a $#!+ head ! ! ! :P
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57594906/george-zimmerman-helps-save-family-from-overturned-suv/
Did you catch the DIG at the verdict CBS just had to end the article with?
Zimmerman said he shot Martin in self-defense. Not the truth that Mr. Zimmerman was found Innocent of all charges, NOOO, Zimmerman "Said" he killed that poor innocent young Black child in self defense. Just cuz that White Hispanic Racist said it was self defense don't make is so now do it my brothers.
Quote from: Steve4102 on July 24 2013 08:38:31 AM MDT
Did you catch the DIG at the verdict CBS just had to end the article with?
Now the LameStream Media is trying to say that the accident Zimm helped with, was staged, so he'd look to be the Hero
Can you believe these gutless @$$holes ?
I'd bet, that if he was somehow involved in the accident, they would have twisted it in such a way, that he targeted the other Car, and purposely ran them off the road