Ohio passes Stand Your Ground bill

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
In a democratic republic, the ONLY source of any legal authority comes from the defense of individual rights.
That is not police, if police are violating rights.
You must NEVER surrender to illegal demands by people violating rights.

Trust me, I had to go through a ten hour class of this, much of it discussing laws of being in possession of a CCW. Police do have authority over citizens whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not. If you believe a police officer is violating your rights, you comply, and take up the issue after everything is settled with his superiors. Anytime you challenge the police on the street, you're going to end up hurt or dead, and there is no judge or jury in the world that will convict an officer for using deadly force when you threatened his life.

Again, this has nothing to do with CCW.
When you accept CCW, you are agreeing to certainly restrictions that come along with the CCW because you are going out into the public, and the police have the authority to act on the behalf of those people you may encounter.

The reality is that the police in general do not at all know even the basics of law, and are an ever present danger to society.
For example, the only source of authority is the defense of inherent individual rights.
So then there is no legal way to get nanny laws like alcohol prohibition or the War on Drugs.
No cop should ever try to enforce those pieces of legislation because they obviously are inherently illegal.
The fact police do, such as the raid on Breonna Taylor, shows they are ignorant, arrogant, and dangerous.

And again, police commit crimes often, such as stealing evidence, lying, extorting hookers for sex, committing rape, planting evidence, etc. So if you see a cop attempting to commit murder, according to you, you are supposed to let him, and then just file a complaint later?
No way, any cop attempting to commit murder should die instead of their planned victim.

 

[Batcat]

So a Court of Law acquitted Zimmerman and that was acceptable, but a Court of Law acquitted OJ and that is unacceptable.

Zimmerman broke no laws. He was legally defending himself against a felonious assault and had every right to use deadly force in the state of Florida. He told police everything that happened, even did a walk-thru with them. Investigations revealed everything he told them matched up to what they found.

Bullshit, there was so many holes in his story that if he was on a lake he would have sunk like the Titanic. Only a coward would see a 28yr old, 205+ grown man chase and murder a 17yr old, 160lb teenager as self defense.

It may well have been self defense. When I was 17 I thought I was a lot tougher than I actually was.

My problem is Zimmerman called the cops to report a suspicious individual and then left his vehicle to pursue Trayvon Matin. He should have just left the cops resolve the situation rather than play hero.

If you have a concealed weapons permit and carry, it is wise to remember that if you go looking for trouble it often will find you.

 

[ESay]

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed a controversial “stand your ground” bill that would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense. Senate Bill 175, fast-tracked through the Ohio General Assembly last month by DeWine’s fellow Republicans, will make Ohio the 36th state to no longer require people to retreat before they can justifiably hurt or kill someone in self-defense.

The governor had previously hinted that he would veto SB175, saying he first wanted lawmakers to pass his package of gun reforms that they sat on for more than a year. But in a release sent Monday afternoon, the governor stated that the measure removes an “ambiguity in Ohio’s self-defense law.”

Until now, under Ohio law, people have been justified in using deadly force in self-defense so long as they aren’t the aggressor, believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and are in their home or vehicle. The new law, which takes effect in 90 days, removes the “home or vehicle” requirement, and instead states that the defendant need only be in a place where they lawfully have the right to be.

But Democrats, along with some Senate Republicans, have sharply criticized the bill, saying (among other things) that it would result in more violence and death -- particularly against minorities.

“Only cowards would pass and sign a bill that has been proven to disproportionately harm Black people,” said House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes, an Akron Democrat, in a statement. “Only cowards would support a bill that allows people to shoot first and ask questions later. The blood of the lives lost from the signing and passage of this bill rest solely on those who supported it.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signs ‘stand your ground’ bill

Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed a controversial “stand your ground” bill that would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense.

www.cleveland.com

My state now joins the others with common sense to pass this law which empowers the victims and weakens the criminal element. This bill has been around for several years. Before it was voted on, the Trayvon Martin incident came up, and they felt it better to put it in the drawer. But it's back stronger than ever because this also disables the attacker or their family from suing the victim when deadly force is used. We have had that protection in our homes and cars since the Republicans passed the Castle Doctrine, but not it applies just about anywhere.

As expected, the Democrats are telling us of the doom and gloom that will follow, but of course, every advancement we made to empower the victim had the same claims, yet none came true.

Outside of Cleveland.com (The Cleveland Plain Dealer) it's not being reported by our local news agencies. Gee, I wonder why.

Congratulations, it is long awaited step, I assume. What is more important is that Ohio seems to become more red, as opposed to the common trend.

 

[pknopp]

That is where you argument for compliance breaks down totally.
Andre HIll was on his own property, and had violated no law, so bringing the cop up on charges accomplishes absolutely nothing for Andre Hill.
And even if he did have a gun, which he did not, that legally does not at all give any cop the right to shoot anyone.

If he had a gun in his hand, sure it does. I'm sure a guy doesn't walk around with a gun in his hand. If he had a gun when approached by police, they would mean he pulled it out when police addressed him which you cannot do; at least if you want to live.

He was not on his property. He was on the property of a friend. As for any law he violated, we still don't know that. Police don't walk up to random strangers and harass them for no reason.

He was on private property, with permission.
Which is more than the police had.
And so far only one cop ever claimed he had a gun, so it is doubtful.
But if he had a gun, it would still be illegal for the police to have shot him.
He could have had a valid reason for having the gun out, such as chasing away a burglar.

He did not have a gun. No one is even pretending he did any longer. More people might start considering getting one for protection though. While this guy would still likely be dead maybe he could have got a return shot off to have stopped the intruder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Congratulations, it is long awaited step, I assume. What is more important is that Ohio seems to become more red, as opposed to the common trend.

I'd like to think that, but our voting record shows purple. We have that Moron Sherrod Brown as one of our US Senators, and our Governor Mike DeRino is hardly any Republican at all. He's just using the party. In fact I'm amazed he caved into this bill. Our former Governor John Kasich ran for President along Trump, and I don't have to tell you what I think of him even though like our current Governor, he's a member of our party.

Somebody made a topic of U-Hauls study that showed the top five states of people leaving and the top five states where people are moving to. My state is in one of the top five being moved to. That means more commies are infiltrating our state, and that could change things too if that study is accurate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It may well have been self defense. When I was 17 I thought I was a lot tougher than I actually was.

My problem is Zimmerman called the cops to report a suspicious individual and then left his vehicle to pursue Trayvon Matin. He should have just left the cops resolve the situation rather than play hero.

If you have a concealed weapons permit and carry, it is wise to remember that if you go looking for trouble it often will find you.

To some point I agree, but somebody following you is no reason to attack them after they've stopped.

 

[Rigby5]

It may well have been self defense. When I was 17 I thought I was a lot tougher than I actually was.

My problem is Zimmerman called the cops to report a suspicious individual and then left his vehicle to pursue Trayvon Matin. He should have just left the cops resolve the situation rather than play hero.

If you have a concealed weapons permit and carry, it is wise to remember that if you go looking for trouble it often will find you.

To some point I agree, but somebody following you is no reason to attack them after they've stopped.

But follow the map.
Martin had stopped once out of sight to make a cellphone call to his girl friend.
He had gone east on a sidewalk that goes between the buildings.
It is only after the cellphone call was over, that he went south and ran into Zimmerman, who was clearly ambushing him.
Zimmerman did not stay in the SUV as he claimed in the rerun.
He only followed Martin a short ways to the east, and then went south along the main road.
Then he went east again.
This put in him in front of Martin.
He knew that the path Martin took did not exit, but turned south instead.
So clearly is was Zimmerman who deliberately confronted Martin.

The ONLY reason I have any uncertainty or sympathy for Zimmerman is that he did not shoot right away.
He only shot after badly losing a fight where it got to the point he could have eventually had his weapon taken away. But he still caused the confrontation, so then bears the responsibility for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The reality is that the police in general do not at all know even the basics of law, and are an ever present danger to society.
For example, the only source of authority is the defense of inherent individual rights.
So then there is no legal way to get nanny laws like alcohol prohibition or the War on Drugs.
No cop should ever try to enforce those pieces of legislation because they obviously are inherently illegal.

What makes something illegal is a law getting passed against it. That's the society we live in. Prohibition was illegal because they passed a law making alcohol illegal. Drugs are illegal because they wrote laws against the usage, possession or sales of recreational narcotics, and that makes it illegal. None of us get do decide what is legal and or not legal based on our lone opinion, and that includes the police. The job of police are to enforce laws that were written, and not based on their or your opinion. Theft is illegal, rape is illegal, violently attacking people is illegal, going over the speed limit on the highway is illegal because we wrote laws against these things regardless what your personal opinion is.

Police do know the laws. What do you think they do at the police academy, just run around a track and jump hurdles? Of course they know the laws, they spend weeks of learning that at the academy. It's why they are able to charge you with a crime.

And again, police commit crimes often, such as stealing evidence, lying, extorting hookers for sex, committing rape, planting evidence, etc. So if you see a cop attempting to commit murder, according to you, you are supposed to let him, and then just file a complaint later?
No way, any cop attempting to commit murder should die instead of their planned victim.

Now you are just making things up. You have no evidence that police "often" commit crimes. I think you watch too many television shows. Yes, there are bad cops out there, but they are anomalies, not the standard and eventually get busted themselves. We live in a world of cameras today. It's virtually impossible for anybody to commit a crime these days without a camera recording it somewhere. Most Americans have a video camera in their purse or pants pocket. When I drive my car, my dash cam is recording everything I do.

If you kill a cop for any reason, you're going to prison. That's it. When police are in a confrontation, it's impossible to evaluate what is going on yet alone make a decision that the police are doing anything illegal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But follow the map.
Martin had stopped once out of sight to make a cellphone call to his girl friend.
He had gone east on a sidewalk that goes between the buildings.
It is only after the cellphone call was over, that he went south and ran into Zimmerman, who was clearly ambushing him.
Zimmerman did not stay in the SUV as he claimed in the rerun.
He only followed Martin a short ways to the east, and then went south along the main road.
Then he went east again.
This put in him in front of Martin.
He knew that the path Martin took did not exit, but turned south instead.
So clearly is was Zimmerman who deliberately confronted Martin.

The ONLY reason I have any uncertainty or sympathy for Zimmerman is that he did not shoot right away.
He only shot after badly losing a fight where it got to the point he could have eventually had his weapon taken away. But he still caused the confrontation, so then bears the responsibility for it.

In that video it was a detective that went through the reenactment with Zimmerman, and police had no problem with his account of what took place. Zimmerman said he got out of the car once he reached the club house. On the 911 recording Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was running after Martin. Martin was young and athletic. Not only did he outrun fat Zimmerman in seconds, but he was staying at a house less than a football field away. Speaking of which, Martin did play football in high school.

As the 911 recording clearly shows, Zimmerman stopped running after Martin. So even if Martin was hiding from Zimmerman, once he left the area, Martin could have ran back to the house he was staying at. Instead, Martin decided to wait for Zimmerman to get off the phone probably suspecting he was calling the cops. Once Zimmerman hung up, that's when Martin attacked him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He was on private property, with permission.
Which is more than the police had.
And so far only one cop ever claimed he had a gun, so it is doubtful.
But if he had a gun, it would still be illegal for the police to have shot him.
He could have had a valid reason for having the gun out, such as chasing away a burglar.

Nobody walks around with a gun in their hand, especially when they see a police officer. According to the story, that's not what happened anyway. Like the Travon Martin thing, pieces of the puzzle came out slowly indicating that everything the media first reported was totally inaccurate. That's why I save judgement until an official report is released. It's like this girl in DC that got shot entering the Capital building. We don't know exactly what happened yet. Others are calling the cop a cold blooded killer. He may be, but he likely is not. Let it get investigated, let the videos show the entire situation, and then make a judgment on what is finally reported when we get both sides of the story.

 

[Rigby5]

The reality is that the police in general do not at all know even the basics of law, and are an ever present danger to society.
For example, the only source of authority is the defense of inherent individual rights.
So then there is no legal way to get nanny laws like alcohol prohibition or the War on Drugs.
No cop should ever try to enforce those pieces of legislation because they obviously are inherently illegal.

What makes something illegal is a law getting passed against it. That's the society we live in. Prohibition was illegal because they passed a law making alcohol illegal. Drugs are illegal because they wrote laws against the usage, possession or sales of recreational narcotics, and that makes it illegal. None of us get do decide what is legal and or not legal based on our lone opinion, and that includes the police. The job of police are to enforce laws that were written, and not based on their or your opinion. Theft is illegal, rape is illegal, violently attacking people is illegal, going over the speed limit on the highway is illegal because we wrote laws against these things regardless what your personal opinion is.

Police do know the laws. What do you think they do at the police academy, just run around a track and jump hurdles? Of course they know the laws, they spend weeks of learning that at the academy. It's why they are able to charge you with a crime.

And again, police commit crimes often, such as stealing evidence, lying, extorting hookers for sex, committing rape, planting evidence, etc. So if you see a cop attempting to commit murder, according to you, you are supposed to let him, and then just file a complaint later?
No way, any cop attempting to commit murder should die instead of their planned victim.

Now you are just making things up. You have no evidence that police "often" commit crimes. I think you watch too many television shows. Yes, there are bad cops out there, but they are anomalies, not the standard and eventually get busted themselves. We live in a world of cameras today. It's virtually impossible for anybody to commit a crime these days without a camera recording it somewhere. Most Americans have a video camera in their purse or pants pocket. When I drive my car, my dash cam is recording everything I do.

If you kill a cop for any reason, you're going to prison. That's it. When police are in a confrontation, it's impossible to evaluate what is going on yet alone make a decision that the police are doing anything illegal.

Law is not just current legislation.
Legislators become arrogant and corrupt, and often pen illegal legislation.
Why do you think Prohibition was repealed?
It was inherently flawed.
And every single cop should have known that.
Any cop who arrested anyone under the Prohibition statutes was violating the whole premise for law in a democratic republic.
Which is that the ONLY source of legal authority for any branch of government comes from the defense of rights of other individuals.
But no other individuals have any rights being infringed upon by someone who wants to consume a little alcohol.
So Prohibition by its very nature was entirely illegal.
There is no way it could ever have been made legal.
And anyone who does not know that, is not only unqualified to be involved in law enforcement, but they actually are a clear and present danger to society.
Follow orders is not sufficient.
Police are required to understand the premise of law, so that they do NOT follow illegal orders.
For example, the police un Germany under Hitler were still prosecuted for "just following orders".
Following orders is NOT necessarily legal.
Not only do legislators violate the law sometimes, but eventually ALL government and legislators become totally corrupt and have to be removed by force.
That is the historical reality.
Never have any governments failed to eventually become corrupt.
And it is the fault of police who fail to do their duty in challenging corrupt legislation right away, instead of letting the whole country slowly go down the tubes and require a whole armed rebellion to restore it.
Police just following order are the means by which all countries eventually fail.

As for killing a cop, during Prohibition, with the KKK, and lots of other large scale crimes, police were the means often used to commit murder. And if those cops trying to commit murder are stopped by someone armed, the shooter should get a medal.
How likely they are to be prosecuted by the corrupt hierarchy is really totally irrelevant.
Anyone who does NOT stop a murder by police, due to fear of corrupt retaliation, is guilty of complicity after the fact.

 

[Rigby5]

But follow the map.
Martin had stopped once out of sight to make a cellphone call to his girl friend.
He had gone east on a sidewalk that goes between the buildings.
It is only after the cellphone call was over, that he went south and ran into Zimmerman, who was clearly ambushing him.
Zimmerman did not stay in the SUV as he claimed in the rerun.
He only followed Martin a short ways to the east, and then went south along the main road.
Then he went east again.
This put in him in front of Martin.
He knew that the path Martin took did not exit, but turned south instead.
So clearly is was Zimmerman who deliberately confronted Martin.

The ONLY reason I have any uncertainty or sympathy for Zimmerman is that he did not shoot right away.
He only shot after badly losing a fight where it got to the point he could have eventually had his weapon taken away. But he still caused the confrontation, so then bears the responsibility for it.

In that video it was a detective that went through the reenactment with Zimmerman, and police had no problem with his account of what took place. Zimmerman said he got out of the car once he reached the club house. On the 911 recording Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was running after Martin. Martin was young and athletic. Not only did he outrun fat Zimmerman in seconds, but he was staying at a house less than a football field away. Speaking of which, Martin did play football in high school.

As the 911 recording clearly shows, Zimmerman stopped running after Martin. So even if Martin was hiding from Zimmerman, once he left the area, Martin could have ran back to the house he was staying at. Instead, Martin decided to wait for Zimmerman to get off the phone probably suspecting he was calling the cops. Once Zimmerman hung up, that's when Martin attacked him.

First of all, we do not know Zimmerman ever stopped pursuing Martin.
Just because his breathing was not as heavy, does not mean he returned to his vehicle.
And in fact we know he did not.
The confrontation happened much later, and was very distant to Zimmerman's SUV, so c;learly Zimmerman did not return and instead likely continued pursuing.

You are claiming Martin attacked Zimmerman. But then why is the fight very close to Martin's house, very far from Zimmerman's SUV, and very distant from the road even?

In fact, we also know Martin never ran. He stopped and called his girl friend as soon as he was out of sight. And we also know that Martin was carrying groceries he had purchased at the 7/11. How many thieves would likely be carrying groceries. Clearly it was Zimmerman who made all the mistakes that caused this tragedy. Zimmerman got everything wrong and did everything wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

He was on private property, with permission.
Which is more than the police had.
And so far only one cop ever claimed he had a gun, so it is doubtful.
But if he had a gun, it would still be illegal for the police to have shot him.
He could have had a valid reason for having the gun out, such as chasing away a burglar.

Nobody walks around with a gun in their hand, especially when they see a police officer. According to the story, that's not what happened anyway. Like the Travon Martin thing, pieces of the puzzle came out slowly indicating that everything the media first reported was totally inaccurate. That's why I save judgement until an official report is released. It's like this girl in DC that got shot entering the Capital building. We don't know exactly what happened yet. Others are calling the cop a cold blooded killer. He may be, but he likely is not. Let it get investigated, let the videos show the entire situation, and then make a judgment on what is finally reported when we get both sides of the story.

Of course it is reasonable for someone to sometimes have a gun in your hand.
If you just chased a burglar away, you would likely still have the gun in your hand.
If you do not have a holster, you do NOT just stick it in your pocket or waistband when the police show up.
It is actually safer to leave it out in the open, but just not pointed at anyone.

But yes you are correct that there was no gun anyway at all.
The point is that the cop who shot was just totally wrong because even if there had been a gun in his hand, that would not at all justify shooting him.

As for the Zimmerman/Martin shooting, the media DID get it right initially. You just now have it all wrong. It is impossible for Martin to have ambushed Zimmerman, but the other way around.
I agree however that things can be wrong in the media, so it is best to wait.
However, this was a public building, so then is a perfect target for political protest, which makes the shooting far more negative than if someone had been trying to protect private property.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First of all, we do not know Zimmerman ever stopped pursuing Martin.
Just because his breathing was not as heavy, does not mean he returned to his vehicle.
And in fact we know he did not.
The confrontation happened much later, and was very distant to Zimmerman's SUV, so c;learly Zimmerman did not return and instead likely continued pursuing.

You are claiming Martin attacked Zimmerman. But then why is the fight very close to Martin's house, very far from Zimmerman's SUV, and very distant from the road even?

In fact, we also know Martin never ran. He stopped and called his girl friend as soon as he was out of sight. And we also know that Martin was carrying groceries he had purchased at the 7/11. How many thieves would likely be carrying groceries. Clearly it was Zimmerman who made all the mistakes that caused this tragedy. Zimmerman got everything wrong and did everything wrong.

It's impossible to run and not be panting, especially for a period up to a minute. Try it yourself. Call somebody on the cell phone while running. There is no possible way to hide that.

• 7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know Martin's location.
• 7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.[14]
• 7:16:00 – 7:16:59 — Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15] [the precise time surfaced during the trial, the call ends at 7:15:43, 1 minute and 12 seconds before the shot.]
• 7:16:11 — First 9-1-1 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[16]
• 7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 9-1-1 call.[17]

Timeline of the killing of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As Zimmerman told police, after he hung up with them, he went to the front of the building to copy an address of where he last seen Martin. As he was walking back to his truck, that's when Martin attacked him.

 

[Rigby5]

...

Now you are just making things up. You have no evidence that police "often" commit crimes. I think you watch too many television shows. Yes, there are bad cops out there, but they are anomalies, not the standard and eventually get busted themselves.
...

It can not be emphasized enough that police are always historically the main source of crime.
The majority of governments, now and in the past, have always been dictatorships caused by corrupt police.
That is because cops almost always just do what those who sign their paycheck tell them to do.
Which is almost always something wrong.
In fact, the good cop is the rarity, both now and in all of history.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As for the Zimmerman/Martin shooting, the media DID get it right initially. You just now have it all wrong. It is impossible for Martin to have ambushed Zimmerman, but the other way around.
I agree however that things can be wrong in the media, so it is best to wait.
However, this was a public building, so then is a perfect target for political protest, which makes the shooting far more negative than if someone had been trying to protect private property.

You cannot bust the doors of a public building down and enter it, especially when entering it under normal circumstances requires you to be checked out first. Again, I'm not going to pass judgment on her or the officer until more information comes out.

If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then why no evidence of that? The officer who arrived on the scene testified to the fact that Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head, and the back of his jacket was wet and covered with grass. The Martin autopsy report shows no injuries except for a few scraped knuckles indicative of Martin hitting somebody or something. That means there was no way for Zimmerman to attack Martin otherwise there would have been some sign of injury to Martin from such an attack. Also, the knees on Martin's pants were also wet, and his jacket was dry.

According to investigators, forensics showed that Martin had to be shot while he was over Zimmerman.

Now to some logic here: If Martin lived so close, why didn't he just run home since Zimmerman was clearly no match for him? If Martin was worried about Zimmerman, why did he call his girlfriend instead of the police? After all, if he called the police, they could have explained the situation to him. If Zimmerman planned to attack Martin, why did he call the police? If I was going to attack anybody, that's the last thing I would do.

Here is what I think happened: Martin was talking to his girlfriend and told her he ran away from Zimmerman. His girlfriend made a comment on his courage, and Martin felt he had to even the score to save face with her. That's why the girlfriend didn't want to appear in court, so she got a girlfriend or relative of hers to say she was really Travon's girlfriend instead.

"The Trayvon Hoax" Film is now on YouTube for Free, Director says "Enjoy Stay at Home Bonus!"

/PRNewswire/ -- The best-selling film, The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America, is now available to watch on YouTube for free for a...

www.prnewswire.com

 

[ESay]

Congratulations, it is long awaited step, I assume. What is more important is that Ohio seems to become more red, as opposed to the common trend.

I'd like to think that, but our voting record shows purple. We have that Moron Sherrod Brown as one of our US Senators, and our Governor Mike DeRino is hardly any Republican at all. He's just using the party. In fact I'm amazed he caved into this bill. Our former Governor John Kasich ran for President along Trump, and I don't have to tell you what I think of him even though like our current Governor, he's a member of our party.

Somebody made a topic of U-Hauls study that showed the top five states of people leaving and the top five states where people are moving to. My state is in one of the top five being moved to. That means more commies are infiltrating our state, and that could change things too if that study is accurate.

Moving between the states is a two way road in the sense that along with the liberals moving out of their states there can be the conservatives moving out of there too for more appropriate life. I think that in the future the will be some states where the conservative population will be growing due to such migration.

But, basically, there need to be fundamental changes in order to preserve some things. Changing election laws is one of them. But not the only one, of course.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, we do not know Zimmerman ever stopped pursuing Martin.
Just because his breathing was not as heavy, does not mean he returned to his vehicle.
And in fact we know he did not.
The confrontation happened much later, and was very distant to Zimmerman's SUV, so c;learly Zimmerman did not return and instead likely continued pursuing.

You are claiming Martin attacked Zimmerman. But then why is the fight very close to Martin's house, very far from Zimmerman's SUV, and very distant from the road even?

In fact, we also know Martin never ran. He stopped and called his girl friend as soon as he was out of sight. And we also know that Martin was carrying groceries he had purchased at the 7/11. How many thieves would likely be carrying groceries. Clearly it was Zimmerman who made all the mistakes that caused this tragedy. Zimmerman got everything wrong and did everything wrong.

It's impossible to run and not be panting, especially for a period up to a minute. Try it yourself. Call somebody on the cell phone while running. There is no possible way to hide that.

• 7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know Martin's location.
• 7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.[14]
• 7:16:00 – 7:16:59 — Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15] [the precise time surfaced during the trial, the call ends at 7:15:43, 1 minute and 12 seconds before the shot.]
• 7:16:11 — First 9-1-1 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[16]
• 7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 9-1-1 call.[17]

Timeline of the killing of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As Zimmerman told police, after he hung up with them, he went to the front of the building to copy an address of where he last seen Martin. As he was walking back to his truck, that's when Martin attacked him.

That is totally and completely impossible.
First of all, we can't tell if Zimmerman continued running or not after he hung up.
But he obviously did NOT at all try to return to his SUV.
The confrontation does not happen in front of building where an address would be, but behind the building. Meaning that Zimmerman has to continue moving east, away from his SUV, to the back of the building, where he knew Martin has to show up eventually.
If what you described were true, then they never would have been in the back yard, away from the street.
Then the confrontation would have been in the front yard, near the street, to the west.
So then clearly it was Zimmerman who was the ambusher who made the confrontation happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...

Now you are just making things up. You have no evidence that police "often" commit crimes. I think you watch too many television shows. Yes, there are bad cops out there, but they are anomalies, not the standard and eventually get busted themselves.
...

It can not be emphasized enough that police are always historically the main source of crime.
The majority of governments, now and in the past, have always been dictatorships caused by corrupt police.
That is because cops almost always just do what those who sign their paycheck tell them to do.
Which is almost always something wrong.
In fact, the good cop is the rarity, both now and in all of history.

And yet you have zero evidence to support your claim.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Moving between the states is a two way road in the sense that along with the liberals moving out of their states there can be the conservatives moving out of there too for more appropriate life. I think that in the future the will be some states where the conservative population will be growing due to such migration.

But, basically, there need to be fundamental changes in order to preserve some things. Changing election laws is one of them. But not the only one, of course.

My opinion that I have been voicing for some time now is we need to divide this country and have two countries instead of one; A line right down the middle from north to south. Conservatives move to the conservative country, liberals to the liberal country, and anybody in between will just have to pick a side.

I would rather save half this country than lose the entire thing. The left went from Democrats to liberals, from liberals to progressives, from progressives to what they now call Socialist Democrats. From there it will go to total Socialism, and eventually Communism. There is no way to stop it as far as I can see. It's growing like a cancer, and once the Democrats are able to make us whites a minority, they will have unchallenged power forever. This is why they are pushing so hard for virtual open borders.