The Aftermath of the Trial

[Oldstyle]

from the get go George reminded me of a guy who might

have gotten his firearm taken away from him

if push came to shove

i think he waited too long much to long before pulling his firearm

I remember a friend who always carried a baseball bat in his car for "protection". He got into an accident and the person whom he hit was angry and confrontational. My friend got the bat out of the car and told the other guy to back off. The guy took the bat away...my friend ran away...and the other guy proceeded to break most of the glass on my friend's car with his newly found "toy" before he drove away.

If someone is not strong enough to use a bat as a weapon they should use something else. If your friend had his bat, and got out of the car immediately rushing his opponent swinging, he might not have had it taken away.

The worst thing a person can do when wielding a weapon is to make a threat or act aggressively. Such hesitancy is an invitation to take it away.

The worst thing a person can do is introduce a weapon into a confrontation that they don't really have any intention of using. My friend assumed the mere threat of the bat would intimidate the other man. It didn't! It's no different with a gun. If you pull one and tell someone to get back? You've painted yourself into a corner if they don't. It's why you shouldn't take a gun out unless you're prepared to shoot it. I have no way of knowing what Trayvon Martin's response would have been if Zimmerman had pulled his gun before the first punch and told him to stay back. He very well might have done so and that would have been the end of it. Knowing Zimmerman's demeanor however I strongly suspect that George would have hesitated if Martin continued towards him.

 

[Katzndogz]

I've taken (and taught) self defense classes for women. Women might have a number of weapons at their disposal, keys, a high heeled shoe, a pen can be a weapon. While it is simple to teach women how to use items as weapons, it is almost impossible to remove the hesitancy. Yes a key can put someone's eye out, but women won't do it. They will go right up to that point and stop. Yes it is possible to kill someone with a shoe, but not many women will.

When they do, it ends up like this

Ana Lilia Trujillo Allegedly Claims She Killed Boyfriend With Stiletto High Heel In Self Defense

HOUSTON — Officials say a Houston woman accused of stabbing her boyfriend to death with a stiletto high heel told police she was trying to protect herself.

Houston police say 44-year-old Ana Lilia Trujillo told investigators the man was attacking her and she acted in self-defense.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Think Trayvon's Record Said Something About His Character? Well, Get A Load Of This.

Lies about Trayvon compared to facts about another well known individual.

 

[Oldstyle]

Think Trayvon's Record Said Something About His Character? Well, Get A Load Of This.

Lies about Trayvon compared to facts about another well known individual.

You know what, Luddly? That laughable MSNBC piece simply illustrates how this case was handled by the main stream media right from the start. If you'll notice, they don't refute any of what they refer to as "character assassination". The truth is...Trayvon Martin WAS suspended from school 3 times! He WAS found in possession of a baggy with pot residue and a pipe in school! He WAS caught on video defacing school property with obscene graffiti! He WAS found in possession of stolen jewelry!

What does George W. Bush's drunk driving record have to do with THAT? It's absurd. What's even MORE absurd is that MSNBC used Bush's run ins with the law to attempt to assassinate HIS character yet they now feel that anyone doing the same thing to Trayvon Martin is wronging him? Martin Bashear isn't intelligent enough to grasp the blatant hypocrisy in what he's saying. It's amusing to watch...

 

[Oldstyle]

Only progressives would label someone pointing out facts...as telling "lies". Luddly doesn't seem to grasp how ridiculous that claim is.

There is MSNBC...still using the picture of Trayvon Martin from four years earlier as they claim that someone else is trying to portray him in an untruthful manner.

 

[numan]

'
I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:

A place called Sanford

The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.

It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.

I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.

It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.

.

Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan

You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.

It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.

But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

'
I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:

A place called Sanford

The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.

It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.

I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.

It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.

.

Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan

You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.

It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.

But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.

.

Yes, no Canadian would ever report anything other than the gospel truth.
Canada has some of the highest incest rates in the "civilized" world.

 

[BobPlumb]

Are you smoking crack? Trayvon Martin committed no crime? He committed assault and battery, which is not only a crime but a felony. What part of that don't you GET?

You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal. GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him. So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.

Of course we are assuming GZ's story is the truth. All forensic evidence and testimony supports his version and zip, zero, nadda refutes it.
The fact that you want GZ to do time is not enough to send a man to jail.

There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story. For example, who threw the first punch. GZ says that TM started the fight by punching GZ in the nose. Assuming that GZ is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.

The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up. There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.

If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it. The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are assuming that GZ's story is the truth, but you have no way of knowing that it is. If GZ confronted TM, TM had the right under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" to defend himself, and punching him in the nose was legal. GZ's tiny head wounds very possibly came from him hitting the ground when TM hit him. So, according to Florida's law, TM committed no crime.

Of course we are assuming GZ's story is the truth. All forensic evidence and testimony supports his version and zip, zero, nadda refutes it.
The fact that you want GZ to do time is not enough to send a man to jail.

There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story. For example, who threw the first punch. GZ says that TM started the fight by punching GZ in the nose. Assuming that GZ is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.

The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up. There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.

If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it. The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.

A defendant NEVER HAS TO COLLABORATE ANY OF HIS STORY!

Standard jury charge in the Judge's instructions to the jury in ALL cases and specifically this one:
"George Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution as they have to prove each and every element of their indictment and charges".

 

[BobPlumb]

Of course we are assuming GZ's story is the truth. All forensic evidence and testimony supports his version and zip, zero, nadda refutes it.
The fact that you want GZ to do time is not enough to send a man to jail.

There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story. For example, who threw the first punch. GZ says that TM started the fight by punching GZ in the nose. Assuming that GZ is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.

The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up. There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.

If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it. The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.

A defendant NEVER HAS TO COLLABORATE ANY OF HIS STORY!

Standard jury charge in the Judge's instructions to the jury in ALL cases and specifically this one:
"George Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution as they have to prove each and every element of their indictment and charges".

You and I are in agreement. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. However, it didn't hurt Zimmerman's case that the available evidence generally supported his story. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt; the evidence be damned.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There are some parts of the time line that we only have GZ's story without any other evidence to collaborate his story. For example, who threw the first punch. GZ says that TM started the fight by punching GZ in the nose. Assuming that GZ is lying, GZ could of thrown the first punch; TM slipped the punch and then started beating the hell out of ZM in an act of self defense.

The only problem with my alternative story in which TM is defending himself is that I made it up. There was zero evidence presented at the trial that backs up the story that I made up.

If people want to make up a story not supported by the evidence and keep saying that the jury came to an incorrect verdict, so be it. The rest of us that understand the concept of reasonable doubt can argue until we are blue in the face, yet some people will forever be convinced of ZM's guilt based on their own made up stories which are supported by zero evidence.

A defendant NEVER HAS TO COLLABORATE ANY OF HIS STORY!

Standard jury charge in the Judge's instructions to the jury in ALL cases and specifically this one:
"George Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. He is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution as they have to prove each and every element of their indictment and charges".

You and I are in agreement. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. However, it didn't hurt Zimmerman's case that the available evidence generally supported his story. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt; the evidence be damned.

They're convinced because NBC told them that Zimmerman was a racist murderer. People should not even watch that network, frankly. Make em pay for their BS.

 

[Oldstyle]

'
I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:

A place called Sanford

The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.

It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.

I would imagine that similar exposés have been broadcast in many countries.

It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.

.

Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan

You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.

It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.

But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.

.

God, but you're a douche...

Civilized world? Canada? You've given the rest of humanity, hockey, a form of bacon and sealskin boots! You wouldn't know civilized if it ran up your leg and bit you on your pompous ass!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Sensationist journalism exists everywhere. What a surprise numan

You obviously have not watched the news report which I linked to.

It is the very opposite of "sensationist". It is, after all, a Canadian report, not an American one.

But then, one can hardly expect a parochial American jingoist to know how things are done in the civilized world.

.

God, but you're a douche...

Civilized world? Canada? You've given the rest of humanity, hockey, a form of bacon and sealskin boots! You wouldn't know civilized if it ran up your leg and bit you on your pompous ass!

He's right, Numan. It's hack reporting. It doesn't bother to mention that Trayvon very well may have been the attacker. And then it calls the town racist because it has a 'mostly white police force' and because they 'waited 44 days to press charges.' Well:

A. The first claim is spurious
B. The police had no intention of pressing charges. It was a political decision by the state.

Then the white reporter and a black resident engage in boresome race baiting satire:

White reporter: "I'm gonna drive you."
Black resident: "Oh really? That's a change?"

Then they go back into the town's history. They call the town's founder, Henry Sanford, "a failed fruit farmer" and go into his alleged role in slavery:

Yet, this from his wiki page:

Henry Shelton Sanford (June 15, 1823 – May 21, 1891) was a wealthy American diplomat, businessman, and aristocrat from Connecticut who served as United States Ambassador to Belgium from 1861 to 1869. He is also known for founding the city of Sanford, Florida[1] and for successfully lobbying the United States into recognizing King Leopold II's claim to the Congo region in central Africa, the area that would become Leopold's privately controlled Congo Free State.

Sanford most definitely had money issues with his 'fruit farming' business, but in large part b/c he was doing overseas ventures. Nonetheless, he did create a large town that even paid for 100 Sweden immigrants. Not sure, if 'failure' is the word for him. He certainly did appear to be into slavery, but so was often the case of southerners in the freaking 19th century.

Then we learn from the video that Florida itself, "they say" (never bothers to mention who they are) had more lynchings per capita than any other state. Nonetheless, it's showing ancient history, to somehow prove great racism today.

Then the black resident smiles as he tells of a story of kids allegedly calling him and his brother the so-called n-word.

Then the reporter says that his uncle was lynched for whistling at a white woman. They don't bother to explore that wive's tale. Nonetheless, that would've been decades prior too.

Then they use hyperbole to say how Jackie Robinson was allegedly ran out of town during his baseball visit. Never mind that he probably played the games and was just fine. But, it's better to say 'ran out of town.' But again, this was like 60 years ago. What relevance does it have to George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin?

The video then glorifies the white police chief being fired to bring in the black police chief.

Then the video alleges racism b/c in 2010 a white man beat up a homeless black man. The white man was the son of a police lieutenant and the reporter doesn't bother to tell that George Zimmerman actually led the charge for justice!

And it's funny b/c they show the town and it's all peaceful. No strife.

You need to learn how to discern reporting from propaganda, Numan.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^
My bad. It was OldStyle. No surprises there. A hack video posted by a hack. Him and Lakota probably exchange hack links in their free time.

 

[Circe]

Trayvon Martin was a thug in training. This is not important except in one respect. Was being a young thug, just trying his wings, the kind of person who would have a propensity to attack others? The jury, upon the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin probably threw the first punch, concluded that he was.

There is a sickness in the black community that encourages the belief that there is some sort of right to commit crimes.

Tray-von was a thug in training; we know that from the stolen jewelry found in his backpack, the school expulsion, the idiot and illiterate girlfriend, the fact that he was standing around in the rain casing the houses, and his violence.

The fewer of the Trayvon criminal type around, the better.

 

[Circe]

The worst thing a person can do is introduce a weapon into a confrontation that they don't really have any intention of using. My friend assumed the mere threat of the bat would intimidate the other man. It didn't! It's no different with a gun. If you pull one and tell someone to get back? You've painted yourself into a corner if they don't. It's why you shouldn't take a gun out unless you're prepared to shoot it. I have no way of knowing what Trayvon Martin's response would have been if Zimmerman had pulled his gun before the first punch and told him to stay back. He very well might have done so and that would have been the end of it. Knowing Zimmerman's demeanor however I strongly suspect that George would have hesitated if Martin continued towards him.

I'm inclined to agree, as a woman: make no threats. You lose the surprise advantage.

I believe in the old rule: never point a gun at anyone unless you mean to use it.

Then do so.

 

[numan]

I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:

A place called Sanford

The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.

It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.

It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.

Thank you, Gatsby, for taking the trouble to watch the CBC report. I would be surprised if many other readers here did.

Naturally, I disagree completely with your interpretation of it, but I must thank you for some new information which was not in the report:

Then they go back into the town's history. They call the town's founder, Henry Sanford, "a failed fruit farmer" and go into his alleged role in slavery:

Yet, this from his wiki page:

Henry Shelton Sanford (June 15, 1823 – May 21, 1891) was a wealthy American diplomat, businessman, and aristocrat from Connecticut who served as United States Ambassador to Belgium from 1861 to 1869. He is also known for founding the city of Sanford, Florida[1] and for successfully lobbying the United States into recognizing King Leopold II's claim to the Congo region in central Africa, the area that would become Leopold's privately controlled Congo Free State.

Apparently your knowledge of recent world history does not extend to King Leopold being one of the most evil human beings who has ever lived -- right up there with Hitler and Stalin!! His monstrous exploitation of the "Belgian" Congo, and brutalizing and torturing and murdering its people, are legendary -- and the founder of Sanford, Florida, you have revealed, was his staunch ally!!

I did not expect that the history of Sanford could be more loathsome than was revealed in the CBC news report, but, thanks to you, I now know how its vileness surpassed my worst imaginings!!

You might consider reading Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness to gain a tongue-tip taste of the horror which King Leopold and his ally, Henry Sanford, unleashed.
.

 

[beagle9]

I happened to watch what was broadcast to all of Canada on the CBC National news a couple of nights ago:

A place called Sanford

The Trayvon Martin shooting trial opens up old wounds. Paul Hunter takes us to Sanford, Florida.

It appears that Sanford, Florida has a long history of virulent racism. I had not realized what a microcosm of all that is most vile and disgusting in the American national experience the place is, but now I know -- and most of Canada now knows it.

It is hardly surprising that so many people in the world regard Americans as violent, primitive savages when they learn of the behavior of Americans in places like Sanford, Florida.

Thank you, Gatsby, for taking the trouble to watch the CBC report. I would be surprised if many other readers here did.

Naturally, I disagree completely with your interpretation of it, but I must thank you for some new information which was not in the report:

Then they go back into the town's history. They call the town's founder, Henry Sanford, "a failed fruit farmer" and go into his alleged role in slavery:

Yet, this from his wiki page:

Henry Shelton Sanford (June 15, 1823 – May 21, 1891) was a wealthy American diplomat, businessman, and aristocrat from Connecticut who served as United States Ambassador to Belgium from 1861 to 1869. He is also known for founding the city of Sanford, Florida[1] and for successfully lobbying the United States into recognizing King Leopold II's claim to the Congo region in central Africa, the area that would become Leopold's privately controlled Congo Free State.

Apparently your knowledge of recent world history does not extend to King Leopold being one of the most evil human beings who has ever lived -- right up there with Hitler and Stalin!! His monstrous exploitation of the "Belgian" Congo, and brutalizing and torturing and murdering its people, are legendary -- and the founder of Sanford, Florida, you have revealed, was his staunch ally!!

I did not expect that the history of Sanford could be more loathsome than was revealed in the CBC news report, but, thanks to you, I now know how its vileness surpassed my worst imaginings!!

You might consider reading Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness to gain a tongue-tip taste of the horror which King Leopold and his ally, Henry Sanford, unleashed.
.

Kidding me right, so you think modern day Sanford can be connected to someone or something that existed way back then ? WOW what a stretch that is for modern times in which we all live in today in this nation.

 

[Pop23]

Admit it dimwits, if George ZimmerHEROman had not had a gun that night, but was able to put his hands on a large rock and bashed TMs head in with it, killing him, none of you would give a rats butt about any of this

You're agenda failed as poorly as your arguments.

You have all become boring

 

[PaulS1950]

Numan,
How do you connect a man fighting for a region to be free with a dictator who ruthlessly kills his own people. Was the king a puppet of Henry Sanford? Did Henry put him in office? Was Henry in control of the politics in the Congo?

You should consider joining the writing staff at NBC or better yet MSNBC. You would fit right in with the other writers who lie and connect the unconnectable to further their version of how things should have happened instead of actually reporting the news.