That Gun Totting Evil White Man that shot that poor black teen.

[JimBowie1958]

engaging people is NOT a crime. The youth started a verbal confrontation that escalated into a horrific tragedy for all concerned

So, chasing someone down into someone else's back yard is "engaging" people. Asking that person why they are following you is "starting a confrontation" that warrants being shot out of fear of bodily harm.

Do society a couple favors. First of all, get sterilized. We don't need you contributing to the onset of idiocracy. Secondly, got for a walk in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and run away when you see him following you. Then you can come back and tell us how well it went.

Oh God, speaking of irony!

Inthemiddle, the did sterilize you right, when yo uwere locked up in the psycho ward eating your own poop and painting it on the walls, right?

Yes, it is legal to follow someone and go up to them and ask them a question, even if they are white and want to ask a black person a question.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Other reports say he was on the high school football team, and it doesnt matter anyuway as you admit he was 6'3", but 140?

Jesus Christ, my daughter weighs 120 at 5'3" and she is a gymnist!

You are so stupid you cant see the implausible factoids you throw around likke horse manure on a farm.

BTW, dumbass, do you have any clue why the high school sealed Martins records?

Could it be that there are facts there that would undermine this witch hunt for Zimmerman?

ESADIAF.

I would suspect that the Records are sealed because he was a Minor.

If they were even sealed. Jimmyboy has a habit of making up "facts" much like his fact that Martin was a hulking black threat....and he made that up after a few of us questioned where the can of tea that Martin supposedly used to attack was.

I never said anything about a can of tea, you stupid freak.

Shit acuse me of making stuff up, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I loved the " wanted to read the name on a street sign." The dude has lived there for years, and has Eric Cartman-patrolled it for years. THERE ARE THREE (Count 'em THREE!) whole streets in that entire complex.

It must have been a difficult thing to remember, I guess.

"I asked the subject in the red jacket, later identified as George Zimmerman (who was original caller for the suspicious person complaint), if he had seen the subject. Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all of my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waist band, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."

"Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard[sic] him state "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department."

form the Police Report

I read that days ago. What is your point?

Apparently that Martin attacked Zimmerman or is that too much for your brain cell to handle?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I need you to explain to me how he was acting in self defense if he himself was following this boy and stalking him.

If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.

IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.

No he was not, you stupid asshole. God, the stand your ground law means you defend yourself if someone attacks you. It doesnt give you the right to pre-emptively attack someone, you libtard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.

IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.

The right of self defense of MARTIN, the VICTIM, isn't being addressed. I noted that also.

Peach, where do you get the stupid ass idea that the right of self defense means that you can go up and attack a man while his back is turned to you?

God you are as stupid as the rest of the libtards.

Shit, are you THAT desperate to be told its OK your not a racist?

ROFLMAO, it wont matter deary. When they want to get you they will no matter what you say or do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The concealed carry permit is not an issue. Much more gun crime is committed by people who do not have a permit than us that do.

Maybe it is. The guy felt emboldened enough because he had that permit , that he pursued and engaged a citizen that was innocent and unarmed. If HE got a permit...this puts a cloud over the permit issue.

Only in your libtarded mind.

Martin beat Zimmerman from behind, down to the ground where he then beat him more and kicked him repeatedly. He only stopped because he got a bullet.

This is a clear case of self defense no matter how much you racist bigots want it to be murder.

 

[JimBowie1958]

IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.

Sure. If I think somebody is following me ,and I ask them what the **** they are doing following me, I have every right to attack them and beat them until, they pull out a gun. Then it's a clear cut case of racism.

We ALL know white people and Hispanics hate all black people.

I'm not responsible for your racism.

And he is not responsible for your racism, stupidity and drug induced brain damage.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I read that days ago. What is your point?

His point, apparently, is that Zimmerman picks his nose, and the police did not even question him about the incident.

Because we all know nose-picking is a crime, lol.

What a loon.

 

[Salt Jones]

Apparently Zimmerman will be MIA within the next 30 days.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Apparently Zimmerman will be MIA within the next 30 days.

Wouldnt surpise me.

With all the hatred that is being fanned at him?

Hell, he will disappear either voluntarily or involuntarily.

It's a shame that they did that to a guy who did nothing more than defend himself.

 

[sitarro]

A grown man would shoot another person during a struggle

If Zimmerman really were being so violently attacked that he needed to scream the bloody murder heard on the tapes, he wouldn't have been able to pull out his gun, much less wrestle the kid prone to shoot him in the back.

physically hostile youth

This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, which doesn't even make sense considering all the known facts. Even if your contention were true, and Martin did engage in hostility with Zimmerman, at most it would have been Zimmerman who would have had a reason to fear for his safety. He was walking down the street and minding his own business, and this guy comes chasing him down for not apparent reason and corners him in someone's yard. The simple fact of the matter is that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman admitted on the 911 tape that he was following after Martin. This fact alone eliminates Zimmerman's ability to claim self defense, because he was the one who created the hostile situation.

Wow, how many assumptions are you making. Why do you think that Zimmerman was chasing the 140 pound, 6'2" football player. He said he was following him, how does that translate to chasing him? The 911 operator said that "we don't need you to do that", hardly a command to not follow what he felt was a suspicious person casing the neighborhood that had been broken into before. Why did Martin run? How did the overweight Zimmerman catch a teenage football player unless the football player circled around to attack him from the rear, standard sucker punch. Why didn't the football player run to his father's house?
A witness, someone that was actually there, said that he saw the guy in the red shirt on his back with another guy beating him in the face......how did that happen if Zimmerman had his gun drawn confronting the football player?

?[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXLwGQdImoM]THE BEST STREET (SUCKER PUNCH) KNOCKS OUT - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

I read that days ago. What is your point?

His point, apparently, is that Zimmerman picks his nose, and the police did not even question him about the incident.

But, the police DID question him. The police disarmed him at the scene, had EMTs tend to his head wounds, handcuffed him, took him back to the station, and interrogated him in the interrogation room.

All in the police report.

 

[Si modo]

engaging people is NOT a crime. The youth started a verbal confrontation that escalated into a horrific tragedy for all concerned

So, chasing someone down into someone else's back yard is "engaging" people. Asking that person why they are following you is "starting a confrontation" that warrants being shot out of fear of bodily harm.

Do society a couple favors. First of all, get sterilized. We don't need you contributing to the onset of idiocracy. Secondly, got for a walk in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and run away when you see him following you. Then you can come back and tell us how well it went.

It wasn't a back yard, it was a common area in the neighborhood. Zimmerman received wounds while in the presence of Martin - wounds to his head that were treated on the scene by EMTs. An eyewitness saw Zimmerman on his back just before the shooting. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back when the cops arrived. Zimmerman states that he called for help before the shooting and a witness statement indicates that someone was calling for help just before the gunshot.

Any reasonable person would know that there was some sort of physical interaction between the two, based on the evidence at the scene and witness statements.


Again, in the cop report.

 

[Si modo]

A grown man would shoot another person during a struggle

If Zimmerman really were being so violently attacked that he needed to scream the bloody murder heard on the tapes, he wouldn't have been able to pull out his gun, much less wrestle the kid prone to shoot him in the back.

physically hostile youth

This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, which doesn't even make sense considering all the known facts. Even if your contention were true, and Martin did engage in hostility with Zimmerman, at most it would have been Zimmerman who would have had a reason to fear for his safety. He was walking down the street and minding his own business, and this guy comes chasing him down for not apparent reason and corners him in someone's yard. The simple fact of the matter is that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman admitted on the 911 tape that he was following after Martin. This fact alone eliminates Zimmerman's ability to claim self defense, because he was the one who created the hostile situation.

Where are you coming up with your 'facts' about Martin being 'wrestled to the ground'?

Martin was found face down on the ground when the cops arrived, but he had already been shot, in the chest, not in the back.

And what makes you think someone cannot pull out a gun simply because they screamed? How are those two actions mutually exclusive?

What "chase" are you talking about? Then let us know how following someone is prohibited by law (without a court order)?

You need to read the police report and the statute - your "facts" are wrong.

 

[ThirdTerm]

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This section of the law does allow anyone to use deadly force if he thinks it's necessary to defend himself in any place but Zimmerman did not act reasonably when he left his vehicle to pursue the teen. Sen. Chris Smith said he is preparing a bill that would not allow a self-defense claim in cases where the shooter appeared to provoke the victim.

That's all well and good, but if that was enacted tomorrow, the current statute, not the new one, would STILL apply to this case, and it says nothing about "provocation", no matter what Sen. Smith (or you) WISHES it said. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids any Ex Post Facto law. Google it, if you don't know what that means.

There is huge political pressure building up to charge Zimmerman and if he is going to be charged, it would be based on the premise that the stand-your-ground law does not apply when the shooter chased after the victim. So Zimmerman's lawyer is now claiming that the statute on 'stand your ground' is not really applicable to this case because it is primarily when you're in your house as I posted before.

 

[Ravi]

If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.

IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.

Not unless Zimmerman attacked him first, Ravi, and that's what we don't know, and may never know with certainty. Zimmerman chasing Martin (unwise though it was) is NOT a crime. Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there is NOT a crime. Now IF Zimmerman did in fact grab Martin, or hit Martin, THAT would be a crime (assault and battery) and Martin could legally defend himself. However, there is (so far) no physical evidence or witness testimony that indicates Zimmerman did that. On the other hand, there is BOTH physical evidence and witness testimony that shows Martin DID strike Zimmerman-Zimmerman's injuries (as noted in the police report), and the account of an eyewitness who saw Zimmerman on the ground, on his back, with Martin punching and/or kicking him. That fact is NOT in dispute here; the only question is whether any unlawful act (assault) by Zimmerman preceded the assault by Martin.

BTW I never said that Martin DID IN FACT use the can of tea as a weapon: I simply laid out a scenario consistent with the known facts in which Martin COULD have done so, PROVIDED he had the can in his hand. If the can was in fact found in Martin's pocket instead of in his hand or on the ground, that scenario would be ruled out.

You are applying the law unequally. If Martin reasonably thought he was in danger (and it turns out that he was) he had every right to use force against him.

 

[Ravi]

If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.

IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.

No he was not, you stupid asshole. God, the stand your ground law means you defend yourself if someone attacks you. It doesnt give you the right to pre-emptively attack someone, you libtard.

Yes it does....if you feel yourself in mortal danger.

 

[Ravi]

A grown man would shoot another person during a struggle

If Zimmerman really were being so violently attacked that he needed to scream the bloody murder heard on the tapes, he wouldn't have been able to pull out his gun, much less wrestle the kid prone to shoot him in the back.

physically hostile youth

This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, which doesn't even make sense considering all the known facts. Even if your contention were true, and Martin did engage in hostility with Zimmerman, at most it would have been Zimmerman who would have had a reason to fear for his safety. He was walking down the street and minding his own business, and this guy comes chasing him down for not apparent reason and corners him in someone's yard. The simple fact of the matter is that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman admitted on the 911 tape that he was following after Martin. This fact alone eliminates Zimmerman's ability to claim self defense, because he was the one who created the hostile situation.

Where are you coming up with your 'facts' about Martin being 'wrestled to the ground'?

Martin was found face down on the ground when the cops arrived, but he had already been shot, in the chest, not in the back.

And what makes you think someone cannot pull out a gun simply because they screamed? How are those two actions mutually exclusive?

What "chase" are you talking about? Then let us know how following someone is prohibited by law (without a court order)?

You need to read the police report and the statute - your "facts" are wrong.

Where are you getting the information that he was shot in the chest, not the back?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Where are you getting the information that he was shot in the chest, not the back?

Link ? He was shot in the back ?

 

[Ravi]

This section of the law does allow anyone to use deadly force if he thinks it's necessary to defend himself in any place but Zimmerman did not act reasonably when he left his vehicle to pursue the teen. Sen. Chris Smith said he is preparing a bill that would not allow a self-defense claim in cases where the shooter appeared to provoke the victim.

That's all well and good, but if that was enacted tomorrow, the current statute, not the new one, would STILL apply to this case, and it says nothing about "provocation", no matter what Sen. Smith (or you) WISHES it said. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids any Ex Post Facto law. Google it, if you don't know what that means.

There is huge political pressure building up to charge Zimmerman and if he is going to be charged, it would be based on the premise that the stand-your-ground law does not apply when the shooter chased after the victim. So Zimmerman's lawyer is now claiming that the statute on 'stand your ground' is not really applicable to this case because it is primarily when you're in your house as I posted before.

His lawyer isn't very bright then, because "stand your ground" covers public places.

But this is interesting. If he is claiming that "stand your ground" doesn't apply there certainly should have been an arrest.