Media: Trayvon Martin the little innocent black boy

[American_Jihad]

Inconvenient Truths About The Trayvon Martin Shooting​

5/24/12 By Ben Cohen

A large quantity of information about the Trayvon Martin case was recently made public.

This new information constitutes only a small portion of the massive collection of information turned over by the prosecution as part of discovery. Upon reading through the 183 pages of documents, it becomes apparent that George Zimmerman should have never been charged with second degree murder, as I have maintained since the beginning of the controversy at the Daily Kos.

From the onset, media have selectively reported the facts to create a fantasy narrative where George Zimmerman stalked and shot a helpless unarmed teenager. The media ignored the mountain of evidence that suggests that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman beating him when he was shot, and that Zimmerman acted out of fear of death or serious injury. The media instead focused on the speculative testimony of Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora Lamilla over an actual eyewitness account from a man identified by the press as “John.” That the rest of the evidence strongly supported “John’s” version of events made the false narrative crafted by the media even more outrageous. When Police Chief Bill Lee released a statement saying that Zimmerman had claimed self-defense and that the evidence supported him, the media attacked Lee. Now that the evidence has come out, we see that it weighs on the side of Police Chief Lee and against the people who attacked him.

George Zimmerman had a broken nose, two black eyes, and lacerations on the back of his head. Trayvon Martin, in contrast, had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his knuckles. Responding officers and paramedics witnessed George Zimmerman’s injuries and medical records confirm them. An eyewitness stated that a man matching George’s description was being pummeled while screaming for help. The lead investigator, who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, determined that the voice screaming for help was George Zimmerman’s.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/24/inconvenient-truths-about-the-trayvon-martin-shooting/

6'3"​

 

[blastoff]

Al and Jesse race pimps don't give a damn about any facts. They're interested in their street cred with the dumbest of the dumb blacks and the best way to enhance it is to beat the innocent-black-kid-hunted-down-and-killed-by-a-non-black drum. The fact that there's a virtual black on black war raging in every major city in America every day doesn't seem to interest them much.

It's just a variation on the Duke Lacrosse theme from the Tawana Brawley Instruction Manuel for the two a-hole reverends.

 

[KissMy]

Please don't start another thread about this when there are already a hundred of them!!!

 

[tererun]

The only reason this had to go into the court of public opinion is that the police half assed their duty to arrest, charge, and gather evidence against zimmerman and leave it up to a court or jury to decide if this was a legal murder or not. Really no human life should be taken without due process and our court system being involved. The police are not above bias, and the court has ways of removing people during a trial who do have a bias in judging guilt or innocence. The public is not going to see all the evidence, and the hype over this shows that they will not see all the evidence.

I will admit that at the beginning of this, before i was on this site, with the evidence presented in the media i was convinced zimmerman was not injured by treyvon. Clearly that is wrong, but I was not in a position to judge his guilt or innocence. he will have every possible advantage in court to present his case that he was justified in shooting treyvon as per Florida Law. The jury will hear all of his evidence we were never allowed to see, and no one will keep him from presenting valid evidence of what happened to the people who hold judgement on him. All I wanted was for zimmerman to face the same legal proceedings and processes anyone should after killing someone. Having it dismissed that night with no push to any further investigation was the wrong thing to do.

That being said the big problem with this is not the shooting itself, but rather the clearly wrong way the local police and law enforcement people handled the shooting. He needed to face the courts because that should be what anyone who kills another has to do. Even if it is justified there should be a neutral review of the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here as there is no doubt to his guilt in killing treyvon. That is supposed to keep us from charging people of a crime for harassment purposes with no probable cause at all. In this case we know he killed treyvon, and no one denies that fact. Guilt for the killing is known, now we are just trying to decide if it was justified, not if he was innocent.

The right thing is being done, but we now see the damage that is done when you have to go so far to make law enforcement act in a way they should have to begin with. In order to cover themselves from allegations of wrongdoing they should have charged him and let him defend himself in court with the evidence they collected.

 

[KissMy]

He needed to face the courts because that should be what anyone who kills another has to do. Even if it is justified there should be a neutral review of the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here as there is no doubt to his guilt in killing treyvon. That is supposed to keep us from charging people of a crime for harassment purposes with no probable cause at all.

That is stupid.

You want anyone who has to defend themselves or some else to also have to again defend themselves again against the state in court. Such a rule means if a person defends himself against a robber then they must get robbed by the court system. Brainwashed idiot.

 

[code1211]

I've known many police and legal types in my life.

They all agree that if a guy is arrested, he's probably guilty.

In this case, Zimmerman was not arrested until the Race Riot Leaders showed up and got everyone upset.

If Zimmerman was guilty, the cops probably would have arrested him on the spot. There apparently was evidence to support them turning him loose or they wouldn't have.

He will be pronounced not guilty and his life will be ruined because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson hate and make their livings assuring that Black is Black and all Blacks are victims.

They have done worse to the Black Community than the Plantation system ever did.

 

[tererun]

He needed to face the courts because that should be what anyone who kills another has to do. Even if it is justified there should be a neutral review of the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here as there is no doubt to his guilt in killing treyvon. That is supposed to keep us from charging people of a crime for harassment purposes with no probable cause at all.

That is stupid.

You want anyone who has to defend themselves or some else to also have to again defend themselves again against the state in court. Such a rule means if a person defends himself against a robber then they must get robbed by the court system. Brainwashed idiot.

Yes, I think if you take someone's life you should have to defend that action in court. Does that clarify it for you because you really seemed to have not understood what I said from your response.

 

[tererun]

I've known many police and legal types in my life.

They all agree that if a guy is arrested, he's probably guilty.

In this case, Zimmerman was not arrested until the Race Riot Leaders showed up and got everyone upset.

If Zimmerman was guilty, the cops probably would have arrested him on the spot. There apparently was evidence to support them turning him loose or they wouldn't have.

He will be pronounced not guilty and his life will be ruined because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson hate and make their livings assuring that Black is Black and all Blacks are victims.

They have done worse to the Black Community than the Plantation system ever did.

Most of the real law enforcement people I know arrest first and let the court decide. Do we really want street cops deciding crimes? We do not want the police judging crimes, we want them gathering evidence and charging people with crimes. This is the problem in this case. It is not for the police to decide there is no case in a crime.

 

[KissMy]

He needed to face the courts because that should be what anyone who kills another has to do. Even if it is justified there should be a neutral review of the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here as there is no doubt to his guilt in killing treyvon. That is supposed to keep us from charging people of a crime for harassment purposes with no probable cause at all.

That is stupid.

You want anyone who has to defend themselves or some else to also have to again defend themselves again against the state in court. Such a rule means if a person defends himself against a robber then they must get robbed by the court system. Brainwashed idiot.

Yes, I think if you take someone's life you should have to defend that action in court. Does that clarify it for you because you really seemed to have not understood what I said from your response.

The Sanford prosecutor said to let Zimmerman go & did not charge him. It is wrong to charge an innocent person & make them defend themselves in court just because they had to kill someone. There are justifiable homicides.

This is why we have a "stand your ground law"

My son was attacked by some 53 yr. old loon with a beer bottle at the age of 9, in Chicago years ago, I came to his aid and had to beat the man off him with a bat because no guns allowed in Chicago..only for the gang bangers and criminals. I found out there was a crowd of people just fucking standing there not helping him until I arrived and he tried to come at me, The attacker died 11 days later, I was charged with 1st degree murder..I beat it after spending my savings to buy my family a house AWAY from this type of shit, on a lawyer instead for a charge I shouldn't have been charged with from the out set.

Making a victim who had to kill someone into a victim of the legal system is just plane stupid. The only good thing about the Zimmerman case is that the publicity has allowed him to get enough money to pay for his defense.

 

[KissMy]

I've known many police and legal types in my life.

They all agree that if a guy is arrested, he's probably guilty.

In this case, Zimmerman was not arrested until the Race Riot Leaders showed up and got everyone upset.

If Zimmerman was guilty, the cops probably would have arrested him on the spot. There apparently was evidence to support them turning him loose or they wouldn't have.

He will be pronounced not guilty and his life will be ruined because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson hate and make their livings assuring that Black is Black and all Blacks are victims.

They have done worse to the Black Community than the Plantation system ever did.

Most of the real law enforcement people I know arrest first and let the court decide. Do we really want street cops deciding crimes? We do not want the police judging crimes, we want them gathering evidence and charging people with crimes. This is the problem in this case. It is not for the police to decide there is no case in a crime.

Prosecutors are the ones who charge people for crimes. Not the police.

 

[tererun]

That is stupid.

You want anyone who has to defend themselves or some else to also have to again defend themselves again against the state in court. Such a rule means if a person defends himself against a robber then they must get robbed by the court system. Brainwashed idiot.

Yes, I think if you take someone's life you should have to defend that action in court. Does that clarify it for you because you really seemed to have not understood what I said from your response.

The Sanford prosecutor said to let Zimmerman go & did not charge him. It is against the constitution to charge an innocent person & make them defend themselves in court just because they had to kill someone. There are justifiable homicides.

Yes, it was wrong to let the prosecutor act as judge and jury and dismiss this case. Sorry, I do not know any other way to say that.

 

[tererun]

I've known many police and legal types in my life.

They all agree that if a guy is arrested, he's probably guilty.

In this case, Zimmerman was not arrested until the Race Riot Leaders showed up and got everyone upset.

If Zimmerman was guilty, the cops probably would have arrested him on the spot. There apparently was evidence to support them turning him loose or they wouldn't have.

He will be pronounced not guilty and his life will be ruined because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson hate and make their livings assuring that Black is Black and all Blacks are victims.

They have done worse to the Black Community than the Plantation system ever did.

Most of the real law enforcement people I know arrest first and let the court decide. Do we really want street cops deciding crimes? We do not want the police judging crimes, we want them gathering evidence and charging people with crimes. This is the problem in this case. It is not for the police to decide there is no case in a crime.

Prosecutors are the ones who charge people for crimes. Not the police.

Well, if you are going to nitpick, the police do charge people with crimes ll the time. The prosecutor does not get involved if it is a violation. Next time you want to nit pick details you might want to be right.

 

[KissMy]

Most of the real law enforcement people I know arrest first and let the court decide. Do we really want street cops deciding crimes? We do not want the police judging crimes, we want them gathering evidence and charging people with crimes. This is the problem in this case. It is not for the police to decide there is no case in a crime.

Prosecutors are the ones who charge people for crimes. Not the police.

Well, if you are going to nitpick, the police do charge people with crimes ll the time. The prosecutor does not get involved if it is a violation. Next time you want to nit pick details you might want to be right.

I am right & you are wrong.

How a Criminal Case Gets Filed

How does a criminal case get filed? First, there is an arrest and the police report that follows. The prosecutor then reads the police report and decides whether or not the arrested should be charged with a crime. Alternatively, the prosecutor can go to a grand jury and ask them to decide what criminal charges should be filed (an indictment). Finally, a judge holds a preliminary hearing where he or she decides whether there is enough evidence to proceed.

 

[code1211]

I've known many police and legal types in my life.

They all agree that if a guy is arrested, he's probably guilty.

In this case, Zimmerman was not arrested until the Race Riot Leaders showed up and got everyone upset.

If Zimmerman was guilty, the cops probably would have arrested him on the spot. There apparently was evidence to support them turning him loose or they wouldn't have.

He will be pronounced not guilty and his life will be ruined because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson hate and make their livings assuring that Black is Black and all Blacks are victims.

They have done worse to the Black Community than the Plantation system ever did.

Most of the real law enforcement people I know arrest first and let the court decide. Do we really want street cops deciding crimes? We do not want the police judging crimes, we want them gathering evidence and charging people with crimes. This is the problem in this case. It is not for the police to decide there is no case in a crime.

The police called in the paramedics to treat Zimmerman's wounds and interrogated him for 5 hours.

 

[alan1]

He needed to face the courts because that should be what anyone who kills another has to do. Even if it is justified there should be a neutral review of the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here as there is no doubt to his guilt in killing treyvon. That is supposed to keep us from charging people of a crime for harassment purposes with no probable cause at all.

That is stupid.

You want anyone who has to defend themselves or some else to also have to again defend themselves again against the state in court. Such a rule means if a person defends himself against a robber then they must get robbed by the court system. Brainwashed idiot.

Yes, I think if you take someone's life you should have to defend that action in court. Does that clarify it for you because you really seemed to have not understood what I said from your response.

I hope you never kill a person while defending yourself against a rapist.

 

[KissMy]

I've known many police and legal types in my life.

They all agree that if a guy is arrested, he's probably guilty.

In this case, Zimmerman was not arrested until the Race Riot Leaders showed up and got everyone upset.

If Zimmerman was guilty, the cops probably would have arrested him on the spot. There apparently was evidence to support them turning him loose or they wouldn't have.

He will be pronounced not guilty and his life will be ruined because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson hate and make their livings assuring that Black is Black and all Blacks are victims.

They have done worse to the Black Community than the Plantation system ever did.

Most of the real law enforcement people I know arrest first and let the court decide. Do we really want street cops deciding crimes? We do not want the police judging crimes, we want them gathering evidence and charging people with crimes. This is the problem in this case. It is not for the police to decide there is no case in a crime.

The police called in the paramedics to treat Zimmerman's woulds and interrogated him for 5 hours.

Don't forget that the prosecutor & police chief who went to the scene also reviewed the evidence & said they had no case & let Zimmerman go before the police released him. The media pressured the Governor to find a prosecutor that would charge him.

 

[Oldstyle]

The only reason this had to go into the court of public opinion is that the police half assed their duty to arrest, charge, and gather evidence against zimmerman and leave it up to a court or jury to decide if this was a legal murder or not. Really no human life should be taken without due process and our court system being involved. The police are not above bias, and the court has ways of removing people during a trial who do have a bias in judging guilt or innocence. The public is not going to see all the evidence, and the hype over this shows that they will not see all the evidence.

I will admit that at the beginning of this, before i was on this site, with the evidence presented in the media i was convinced zimmerman was not injured by treyvon. Clearly that is wrong, but I was not in a position to judge his guilt or innocence. he will have every possible advantage in court to present his case that he was justified in shooting treyvon as per Florida Law. The jury will hear all of his evidence we were never allowed to see, and no one will keep him from presenting valid evidence of what happened to the people who hold judgement on him. All I wanted was for zimmerman to face the same legal proceedings and processes anyone should after killing someone. Having it dismissed that night with no push to any further investigation was the wrong thing to do.

That being said the big problem with this is not the shooting itself, but rather the clearly wrong way the local police and law enforcement people handled the shooting. He needed to face the courts because that should be what anyone who kills another has to do. Even if it is justified there should be a neutral review of the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here as there is no doubt to his guilt in killing treyvon. That is supposed to keep us from charging people of a crime for harassment purposes with no probable cause at all. In this case we know he killed treyvon, and no one denies that fact. Guilt for the killing is known, now we are just trying to decide if it was justified, not if he was innocent.

The right thing is being done, but we now see the damage that is done when you have to go so far to make law enforcement act in a way they should have to begin with. In order to cover themselves from allegations of wrongdoing they should have charged him and let him defend himself in court with the evidence they collected.

So in essence what you're saying is that anyone involved in a homicide is guilty until they prove their innocence? And law enforcement should worry more about "covering themselves from allegations of wrongdoing" then seeing that the law as written is enforced. Sorry, Tererun but that's not the way our legal system works. The police investigate. The District Attorney decides whether or not to prosecute based on the evidence. In the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided not to prosecute. From what's been released so far that would appear to be the correct decision.

 

[code1211]

The only reason this had to go into the court of public opinion is that the police half assed their duty to arrest, charge, and gather evidence against zimmerman and leave it up to a court or jury to decide if this was a legal murder or not. Really no human life should be taken without due process and our court system being involved. The police are not above bias, and the court has ways of removing people during a trial who do have a bias in judging guilt or innocence. The public is not going to see all the evidence, and the hype over this shows that they will not see all the evidence.

I will admit that at the beginning of this, before i was on this site, with the evidence presented in the media i was convinced zimmerman was not injured by treyvon. Clearly that is wrong, but I was not in a position to judge his guilt or innocence. he will have every possible advantage in court to present his case that he was justified in shooting treyvon as per Florida Law. The jury will hear all of his evidence we were never allowed to see, and no one will keep him from presenting valid evidence of what happened to the people who hold judgement on him. All I wanted was for zimmerman to face the same legal proceedings and processes anyone should after killing someone. Having it dismissed that night with no push to any further investigation was the wrong thing to do.

That being said the big problem with this is not the shooting itself, but rather the clearly wrong way the local police and law enforcement people handled the shooting. He needed to face the courts because that should be what anyone who kills another has to do. Even if it is justified there should be a neutral review of the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here as there is no doubt to his guilt in killing treyvon. That is supposed to keep us from charging people of a crime for harassment purposes with no probable cause at all. In this case we know he killed treyvon, and no one denies that fact. Guilt for the killing is known, now we are just trying to decide if it was justified, not if he was innocent.

The right thing is being done, but we now see the damage that is done when you have to go so far to make law enforcement act in a way they should have to begin with. In order to cover themselves from allegations of wrongdoing they should have charged him and let him defend himself in court with the evidence they collected.

So in essence what you're saying is that anyone involved in a homicide is guilty until they prove their innocence? And law enforcement should worry more about "covering themselves from allegations of wrongdoing" then seeing that the law as written is enforced. Sorry, Tererun but that's not the way our legal system works. The police investigate. The District Attorney decides whether or not to prosecute based on the evidence. In the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided not to prosecute. From what's been released so far that would appear to be the correct decision.

If you are a Liberal and therefore a race based hater of all non-minorities, Tererun's position would make perfect sense.

That position has no place in the American legal system, but the current leadership of the DOJ could be Tererun.

It's a shame and a disgrace that we have come to this.

 

[American_Jihad]

Prosecutors, George Zimmerman's Attorney Ask To Seal Discovery Materials

5/24/12 By Edward B. Colby

George Zimmerman’s attorney has agreed with prosecutors’ request that numerous discovery materials be sealed in new court motions.

“The State and Defendant wish to be able to receive a fair trial and try this case in the courtroom and not in the media,” prosecutors wrote in their motion for a protective order from Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. They said that publishing various discovery materials in the media would result in the case being tried in the press and not in court, and would make it not possible to seat a fair, impartial jury in the county.

The state said that releasing evidence such as the names, addresses and phone numbers of potential witnesses would constrain both sides’ ability to hold a fair and independent investigation and present witnesses.

Prosecutors, George Zimmerman's Attorney Ask To Seal Discovery Materials | NBC 6 Miami

 

[tererun]

So in essence what you're saying is that anyone involved in a homicide is guilty until they prove their innocence?

Anyone who is admittedly involved ina homicide is guilty of killing someone. There is no doubt that zimmerman was there and shot and killed treyvon. So yes he is guilty of killing someone. The question is not whether or not he killed someone which would mean he gets the benefit of being considered innocent of that until the state can provide evidence to him doing the killing. His defense is not that he was innocent at all, but that his killing was justified as per the law which does require a neutral party (AKA the judicial branh0 to decide if his killing fell within the accepted areas of justified homicide. That is what should be judged. had there been little evidence to prosecute zimmerman on a homicide charge because they could not link him to the homicide then you would be correct, but justified homicide is a defense to the homicide charge which was clearly supported by the evidence. That decision was not for the cops to make, and certainly not for a prosecutor who happened to randomly be in the police station for some strange reason when zimmerman was dragged in. Most prosecutors i have seen would not even look at you until you were in court for arraignment. About the best you might get is to make a bail argument if your arraignment is forced to be quick due to lack of bail.

And law enforcement should worry more about "covering themselves from allegations of wrongdoing" then seeing that the law as written is enforced.

Reading not one of your strong suits? Yes, enforcing the law would have been gathering evidence, arresting him, and perhaps setting an initial bail. They would give him an arraignment date dependent on him getting bail. What the police in this case did is to judge his guilt and release him which is certainly not something they should have done in a murder case. Especially not when you have an outright confession to the killing, and absolutely no evidence contrary to the fact that zimmerman killed Treyvon.

Sorry, Tererun but that's not the way our legal system works.

Actually, it is. Police make the initial charge and you make your arguments in court. When the police just dismiss a charge of murder that the defendant has clearly committed that is a blatant show of bias and favoritism.

The police investigate. The District Attorney decides whether or not to prosecute based on the evidence. In the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided not to prosecute. From what's been released so far that would appear to be the correct decision.

The prosecutor never looked at a thing, and most certainly had no business being down at the police station that evening to dismiss charges. If the prosecutor can chose not to prosecute, but that would be something decided at the arraignment when you or your lawyer discuss that option with them. it should have at least made it there with a plea bargain presentation to see if zimmerman caved. Seriously, he shot an unarmed kid just dismissing that in a couple of errors shows a huge problem in how the prosecutor handled the case. Even the police should have gone with their initial reaction and handed it off to the prosecutor to do during arraignment. If they were going to give zimmerman a break they should have ROR'd him saying he was not a danger to the public due to the nature of the crime being potentially self defense.