And so it begins. 2 black teens in Sanford FL attacks and almost kills a 50 year old

[bigrebnc1775]

From the city Manager of Sanford

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be
considered in this investigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you
following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do
that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and
was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by
Trayvon.

 

[Jarhead]

You blame others for the reason behind your decision. I have no sympathy for that. I am sad for your son however.

perhaps I did not articulate it well enough.

I most certainly blamed myself for allowing others rush to judgment to affect my thinking.

The media rushed to jjudgment and I used that infomration to make my decision.

No matter how you want to spin it, I know what my intent was of my post.

I blame no one but myself for rushing to judgment...but I allowed the media to sway my decision...I ALLOWED the media....I ALLOWED the media

But it was my decision in the end.

Do not lecture me about personal responsibility. I am one who tends to lecture others about it.

Sorry if my post confused you.

I will try to articulate my thoughts better in the future.

I wasn't confused at all. You started this off by questioning my judgement. I think you're a fair minded person albeit a bit full of yourself. But hey, whatever works for you.

Later

hey...

constructive criticism never hurt anyone.

Bit full of myself? If I am coming across that way, I will need to make some adjustments on my approiach.

Thanks for the info.

 

[WillowTree]

I can't believe you idiots are claiming this was done in retaliation. Thugs are thugs and act like thugs because they are THUGS not because they are black.

The OP just furthers the stereotype that all black people are criminals.

Neg on the way.

where the fuck is Al Sharpton and the lame stream media? this is a black on white crime and you should be outraged. just fucking outraged.

Should I be more outraged by black on white crime, white on white crime, black on black crime, or white on black crime?

Please do tell.

no you tell,, where is your outrage?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So the Mayor of the town says Zimmerman was not arrested and he gives the legalities of why he was never placed under arrest.
OK - I get that. But it underscores my point about how erroneous assumptions contribute to so many misunderstanding. Many on here assumed he was under arrest based on what they saw on video and based on assuming the laws of states they are more familiar with are mirrored in Florida law.
So when they mayor of the town responds to criticism over the lack of arrest by explaining the law of WHY he was never placed under arrest (and not by saying "we DID place him under arrest") then it's pretty clear to me that he was never placed under arrest.
So please don't berate people when they refuse to make the same assumptions you do. And I would really like to thank and throw tons of respect to those who showed the intellectual integrity to say "upon further review ..." I also thank you for finding the links that confirmed what I could not find.

So now, does the lack of an arrest indicate a flaw in the system? Is Florida's way of handling this just as effective as other state's? Personally, I'm not so sure an "arrest" is necessarily a help or a hinderance in getting at the truth. It does seem odd not to have an arrest here, but Florida's law is sort of odd (no offense intended, it's just a little different) and could be contributing to the misunderstanding around this case.

 

[nodoginnafight]

where the fuck is Al Sharpton and the lame stream media? this is a black on white crime and you should be outraged. just fucking outraged.

Should I be more outraged by black on white crime, white on white crime, black on black crime, or white on black crime?

Please do tell.

no you tell,, where is your outrage?

I think I left it at home today. Maybe as more facts about this case and the Martin/Zimmerman it will outrage me. But right now, I'm just slightly perturbed at people who think any certain race combination in the victim/perpetrator model should produce more "outrage" than any other combination.

 

[Si modo]

So the Mayor of the town says Zimmerman was not arrested and he gives the legalities of why he was never placed under arrest.
OK - I get that. But it underscores my point about how erroneous assumptions contribute to so many misunderstanding. Many on here assumed he was under arrest based on what they saw on video and based on assuming the laws of states they are more familiar with are mirrored in Florida law.
So when they mayor of the town responds to criticism over the lack of arrest by explaining the law of WHY he was never placed under arrest (and not by saying "we DID place him under arrest") then it's pretty clear to me that he was never placed under arrest.
So please don't berate people when they refuse to make the same assumptions you do. And I would really like to thank and throw tons of respect to those who showed the intellectual integrity to say "upon further review ..." I also thank you for finding the links that confirmed what I could not find.

So now, does the lack of an arrest indicate a flaw in the system? Is Florida's way of handling this just as effective as other state's? Personally, I'm not so sure an "arrest" is necessarily a help or a hinderance in getting at the truth. It does seem odd not to have an arrest here, but Florida's law is sort of odd (no offense intended, it's just a little different) and could be contributing to the misunderstanding around this case.

You are right. And, I owe you an apology. I assumed laws in most other states as they pertain to arrest are universal.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Most of you in this thread have no fucking idea what your talking about. Being a thug is not confined to race. It is not determined by political ideology. It is a product of ones upbringing. Some escape the lifestyle but most don't. As a youth I stole cars, sold drugs, hurt people with all manner of weapons from bow and arrow to a car bumper jack. Most of the time it was for no other reason that to gain attention and or perceived fame among peers. I didn't care what color the victim was or who he voted for.

So many of you want to define individuals by race and politics but MOST times neither have anything to do with it or them. Most crrimes are crimes of convenience. Easy target for easy pay off.

This, no matter how hard you try, doesn't fit into a political box. Trying to assign political motivation to a random act of violence is as dumb as assigning the term hate to a crime.

You are correct, thugs come in all colors, sizes, and political affiliations. That still doesn't make being a violent thug "normal" in a civilized society. Motivation for thuggish brutality also covers a range of factors. That still doesn't make it right.
I believe the OP intended to point out how disingenuous the media is when it comes to factually representing events, specifically any representation of race.

 

[Jarhead]

Should I be more outraged by black on white crime, white on white crime, black on black crime, or white on black crime?

Please do tell.

no you tell,, where is your outrage?

I think I left it at home today. Maybe as more facts about this case and the Martin/Zimmerman it will outrage me. But right now, I'm just slightly perturbed at people who think any certain race combination in the victim/perpetrator model should produce more "outrage" than any other combination.

As one who watches the news daily, I do not see nearly as much outrage when there is black on white crime as I do when there is white on black crime. Furthermore, I see virtually no outrage when there is white on white or black on black crime.

Not all white on black crime is hate crime.....likely most of it is not at all....but the media tends to like the sensationalism created by making it appear a hate crime.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So the Mayor of the town says Zimmerman was not arrested and he gives the legalities of why he was never placed under arrest.
OK - I get that. But it underscores my point about how erroneous assumptions contribute to so many misunderstanding. Many on here assumed he was under arrest based on what they saw on video and based on assuming the laws of states they are more familiar with are mirrored in Florida law.
So when they mayor of the town responds to criticism over the lack of arrest by explaining the law of WHY he was never placed under arrest (and not by saying "we DID place him under arrest") then it's pretty clear to me that he was never placed under arrest.
So please don't berate people when they refuse to make the same assumptions you do. And I would really like to thank and throw tons of respect to those who showed the intellectual integrity to say "upon further review ..." I also thank you for finding the links that confirmed what I could not find.

So now, does the lack of an arrest indicate a flaw in the system? Is Florida's way of handling this just as effective as other state's? Personally, I'm not so sure an "arrest" is necessarily a help or a hinderance in getting at the truth. It does seem odd not to have an arrest here, but Florida's law is sort of odd (no offense intended, it's just a little different) and could be contributing to the misunderstanding around this case.

You are right. And, I owe you an apology. I assumed laws in most other states as they pertain to arrest are universal.

I hope I am as big a man next time the shoe is one the other foot. If I can remember how to send rep (it's been a while since I've been here) you got it coming your way!

 

[nodoginnafight]

no you tell,, where is your outrage?

I think I left it at home today. Maybe as more facts about this case and the Martin/Zimmerman it will outrage me. But right now, I'm just slightly perturbed at people who think any certain race combination in the victim/perpetrator model should produce more "outrage" than any other combination.

As one who watches the news daily, I do not see nearly as much outrage when there is black on white crime as I do when there is white on black crime. Furthermore, I see virtually no outrage when there is white on white or black on black crime.

Not all white on black crime is hate crime.....likely most of it is not at all....but the media tends to like the sensationalism created by making it appear a hate crime.

Personally, I don't blame "the media." But I can't really wrap my head around the term "hate" crime. I think all crime is pretty hateful and I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of allowing criminals to face lesser penalties based on the race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim.

 

[Jarhead]

I think I left it at home today. Maybe as more facts about this case and the Martin/Zimmerman it will outrage me. But right now, I'm just slightly perturbed at people who think any certain race combination in the victim/perpetrator model should produce more "outrage" than any other combination.

As one who watches the news daily, I do not see nearly as much outrage when there is black on white crime as I do when there is white on black crime. Furthermore, I see virtually no outrage when there is white on white or black on black crime.

Not all white on black crime is hate crime.....likely most of it is not at all....but the media tends to like the sensationalism created by making it appear a hate crime.

Personally, I don't blame "the media." But I can't really wrap my head around the term "hate" crime. I think all crime is pretty hateful and I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of allowing criminals to face lesser penalties based on the race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim.

Yes...all crime is hateful to a certain degree....but not all crime is a result of hate...and that is what hate crime is all about.

If a white man killed a black man durting a robbery...it was the desire to rob that created the crime.

If a white man killed a black man becuase he hates black men...it was hate that created the crime.

The problem with hate crimes is that mnost were not serious enough offenses to warrant stiff punishments.....most were "beating up a gay guy" or "jumping a black guy"...all because of hate....and the perp would get a slap on the wrist.

Those who kill during a hate crime...it doesnt matter what you call it...it is murder and the punishment will be severe...

Hate crime law was designed to FURTHER punish someone who commits a MINOR crime based on hatred

 

[nodoginnafight]

As one who watches the news daily, I do not see nearly as much outrage when there is black on white crime as I do when there is white on black crime. Furthermore, I see virtually no outrage when there is white on white or black on black crime.

Not all white on black crime is hate crime.....likely most of it is not at all....but the media tends to like the sensationalism created by making it appear a hate crime.

Personally, I don't blame "the media." But I can't really wrap my head around the term "hate" crime. I think all crime is pretty hateful and I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of allowing criminals to face lesser penalties based on the race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim.

Yes...all crime is hateful to a certain degree....but not all crime is a result of hate...and that is what hate crime is all about.

If a white man killed a black man durting a robbery...it was the desire to rob that created the crime.

If a white man killed a black man becuase he hates black men...it was hate that created the crime.

The problem with hate crimes is that mnost were not serious enough offenses to warrant stiff punishments.....most were "beating up a gay guy" or "jumping a black guy"...all because of hate....and the perp would get a slap on the wrist.

Those who kill during a hate crime...it doesnt matter what you call it...it is murder and the punishment will be severe...

Hate crime law was designed to FURTHER punish someone who commits a MINOR crime based on hatred

So if a white man maims my (white) son he is not subject to as stiff a penalty as he would be if he had maimed a black child. (Stiffening penalties for crimes against one class, by definition leaves a lesser penalty for the unprotected class.) I don't agree with that. I support stiff and appropriate penalties for crimes against ALL classes.

 

[GUNSIDEAUG]

CHIMPS GONE WILD

Two men charged with using live snake during sexual assault on woman- Kingsport Times-News

 

[Si modo]

CHIMPS GONE WILD

Two men charged with using live snake during sexual assault on woman- Kingsport Times-News

No one likes you, racist pig. Go away. The only thing you do is annoy with noise.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

CHIMPS GONE WILD

Two men charged with using live snake during sexual assault on woman- Kingsport Times-News

No one likes you, racist pig. Go away. The only thing you do is annoy with noise.

I sent him a little gift nothing like what you would give but I tried.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How is it that ya'll don't get that no one would know who Zimmerman or Martin were if Zimmerman had simply been arrested...

What part of the fact an investigation was done and insufficient evidence was there to charge him? What part of the current witch hunt don't you get where in the facts all appear to support the ORIGINAL conclusion?

 

[saveliberty]

What part of the investigation isn't over is causing you a problem?

 

[bodecea]

Personally, I don't blame "the media." But I can't really wrap my head around the term "hate" crime. I think all crime is pretty hateful and I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of allowing criminals to face lesser penalties based on the race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim.

Yes...all crime is hateful to a certain degree....but not all crime is a result of hate...and that is what hate crime is all about.

If a white man killed a black man durting a robbery...it was the desire to rob that created the crime.

If a white man killed a black man becuase he hates black men...it was hate that created the crime.

The problem with hate crimes is that mnost were not serious enough offenses to warrant stiff punishments.....most were "beating up a gay guy" or "jumping a black guy"...all because of hate....and the perp would get a slap on the wrist.

Those who kill during a hate crime...it doesnt matter what you call it...it is murder and the punishment will be severe...

Hate crime law was designed to FURTHER punish someone who commits a MINOR crime based on hatred

So if a white man maims my (white) son he is not subject to as stiff a penalty as he would be if he had maimed a black child. (Stiffening penalties for crimes against one class, by definition leaves a lesser penalty for the unprotected class.) I don't agree with that. I support stiff and appropriate penalties for crimes against ALL classes.

No, that is not the nature of hate crime charges.

And also if someone maims your son INTENTIONALLY they are subject to stiffer punishment than if it is accidental...is that a thought crime too?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Personally, I don't blame "the media." But I can't really wrap my head around the term "hate" crime. I think all crime is pretty hateful and I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of allowing criminals to face lesser penalties based on the race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim.

Yes...all crime is hateful to a certain degree....but not all crime is a result of hate...and that is what hate crime is all about.

If a white man killed a black man durting a robbery...it was the desire to rob that created the crime.

If a white man killed a black man becuase he hates black men...it was hate that created the crime.

The problem with hate crimes is that mnost were not serious enough offenses to warrant stiff punishments.....most were "beating up a gay guy" or "jumping a black guy"...all because of hate....and the perp would get a slap on the wrist.

Those who kill during a hate crime...it doesnt matter what you call it...it is murder and the punishment will be severe...

Hate crime law was designed to FURTHER punish someone who commits a MINOR crime based on hatred

So if a white man maims my (white) son he is not subject to as stiff a penalty as he would be if he had maimed a black child. (Stiffening penalties for crimes against one class, by definition leaves a lesser penalty for the unprotected class.) I don't agree with that. I support stiff and appropriate penalties for crimes against ALL classes.

Look up, please. Jarhead's point is still within reach if you try harder to comprehend his words.

 

[Salt Jones]

How is it that ya'll don't get that no one would know who Zimmerman or Martin were if Zimmerman had simply been arrested...

What part of the fact an investigation was done and insufficient evidence was there to charge him? What part of the current witch hunt don't you get where in the facts all appear to support the ORIGINAL conclusion?

You are right. Since the police investigated and charges weren't brought forth that is proof of no wrong doing by Zimmerman. We know that police don't make mistakes, if they did you'd have groups like the Innocence Project getting 289 people exonerated.

The Innocence Project - Home

Right?