[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 12 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

It seems pretty clear to me that Trayvon was the one who was being persued, followed, and hunted.

Follwoing someone on a sidewalk for twenty seconds and tehn stopping is neither 'pursuing' nor 'hunting'.

4wheelin_fool, on 12 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Trayvon was the only one who could have used the "stand your ground defense", but he was not armed.

This appears to be a straight up self-defense case, not a 'stand your ground' case. If someone punches you in the nose, knocking you down, and then slams your head into the sidewalk, and you shoot them, the issue is not whether you could have retreated. It's whether you reasonably believed that shooting him is the thing that would keep him from killing you.

4wheelin_fool, on 12 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Zimmeman was obsessed with him, and had a weapon.

Where's the obsession? Zimmerman didn't know Martin from Adam.

4wheelin_fool, on 12 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Trayvon asked "Why are you following me?", and the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon, but he did anyway. Following someone and instigating an altercation is not "standing your ground".

Zimmerman saw someone suspicious and called the police non-emergency number. While on the phone with them and observing the suspect, Martin was leaving the area via a sidewalk. Zimmerman leaves his truck at this time and follws Martin for twenty seconds. At this point, two things happen. Martin is reported to be running away, southbound down the sidewalk between two rows of apartment buildings and Zimmerman clearly stops following (he agrees to stop following and his breathing settles down). Zimmerman stays on teh phone with police for two more minutes. A minute and a half after he gets off the phone with the police, the altercation with Martin takes place something like a 100 feet from the point where Martin runs away. The only way the conflict could happen in that spot is if Martin doubled back on Zimmerman for the second time.

4wheelin_fool, on 12 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Zimmerman created problems where there was none, and left an unarmed kid dead. The real tradegy is how the media made it into a racial incident much more than it was. It also is unbelievable that the sheriffs department initially did little or nothing of an investigation, which only implies that perhaps there was some racism involved. Not so much from Zimmerman, but rather from the police force.

Another possibility is that they completed the investigation and found no evidence to support an indictment. Martin's family wasn't happy with this so they stoked racial tensions using the media. The governor (over)reacted by replacing the prosecutor. The prosecutor disbanded teh grand jury because she feared that they would kick the case. Giving her the opportunity to submit the indictment, as weak as it may be.

4wheelin_fool, on 12 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Zimmerman witnessed a burglary a few weeks before that and did nothing. I suppose that's when he got the idea to kill people who looked suspicious and say he was defending himself. It may have been from a conversation with an officer based on their initial response.

What do you mean that 'he did nothing?' Did he call the issue in? Did he observe but not engage the suspects? Why are we to believe that he would only observe and report in all previous situations, but choose to engage in this one?

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 12 April 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

So an unarmed kid attacked someone with a gun? Why did Zimmerman not show it when he supposedly confronted him? It seems that he wanted to kill him.

Perhaps because doing so would be a clear violation of Florida law (790.053(1)).

This post has been edited by sbell111: 16 April 2012 - 08:06 AM

[sbell111]

Harry Dolphin, on 13 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

so... Based on biased reporting, and supposition. (I do not watch TV news. That is far too biased. I read my local paper, The Star-Ledger. It is biased too, but not into the sound bites of TV. Longer stories...)
Of course, Mr. Martin is not here to present his side of the story.
Gated community... No geocaches involved. Mr. Martin did not live there. He was visiting. Mr. Zimmerman appointed himself 'guardian'. No authority.

He was actually appointed by the other residents, but that doesn’t matter. On the night in question, he was just a guy going to the grocery store who spotted womething suspicious and called it in.

Harry Dolphin, on 13 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

He chose to follow Mr. Martin for a fair while (time unspecified as yet. 1 minute? 20 minutes.)

Twenty seconds, actually. Is that a ‘fair amount of time’?

Harry Dolphin, on 13 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Mr. Martin was feeling unsafe, and noted in phone conservation. Mr. Zimmerman called 911, and it was suggested that he stop his surveillance. He did not.

Actually, based on the call recording and the timeline, he does appear to have stopped following.

Harry Dolphin, on 13 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Mr. Martin asked Mr. Zimmerman "What are you doing?" And that's when what happened happened.
If I were Mr. Martin, I would probably have called the police to report a stalking. Punching him in the face is also a possbility. But I doubt that I would do that. Personally, I think punching Mr. Zimmerman in the face is what he deserved.

Would you also have slammed his head into the sidewalk?

Harry Dolphin, on 13 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

But, unfortunately, under Florida law, you seem to be able to stalk and harass someone, and shoot him him when you feel threatened. To me, that is what this situation is about. Something very wrong here.

Something is very wrong when following someone on a sidewalk for twenty seconds while talking to the police is called ‘stalking and harassing’.

[GeoBain]

knowschad, on 14 April 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

I just know you will enjoy these, GB:

No. Because even if he was a hardened criminal, he's still dead. And that's a shame no matter how you look at it. I take no joy in this situation at all.

[4wheelin_fool]

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

snip

Yes, what you believe is based on what Zimmerman has said. We don't know what occurred. There was no gun residue tests, autopsy, drug or alcohol tests done on either Zimmerman or Trayvon. Police did not interview a witness (his girlfriend who he was on the phone with) until much later after the outcry.

This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 16 April 2012 - 09:11 AM

[4wheelin_fool]

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Something is very wrong when following someone on a sidewalk for twenty seconds while talking to the police is called ‘stalking and harassing’.

How do you know it was for 20 seconds, 20 minutes, 2 hours, or 2 weeks? Because thats what Zimmerman has said?

So stalking someone while calling 911 is okay? How was Trayvon to know he was talking to the police?

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

On the night in question, he was just a guy going to the grocery store who spotted womething suspicious and called it in.

Who happened to call 911 46 times in the last year. How many times have you called 911 in your life, let alone in the last year? He clearly had an obsession.

This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 16 April 2012 - 09:19 AM

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Yes, what you believe is based on what Zimmerman has said. We don't know what occurred. There was no gun residue tests, autopsy, drug or alcohol tests done on either Zimmerman or Trayvon. Police did not interview a witness (his girlfriend who he was on the phone with) until much later after the outcry.

What I believe is based on the known timeline and locations. Granted, I have no reason to disbelieve the things that Zimmerman said to the police prior to the altercation. Similarly, I have no problem believing the story that the GF initially shared, since it dovetails nicely with the timeline, Zimmerman's earlier call to the police, and other witness statements.

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Something is very wrong when following someone on a sidewalk for twenty seconds while talking to the police is called ‘stalking and harassing’.

How do you know it was for 20 seconds, 20 minutes, 2 hours, or 2 weeks? Because thats what Zimmerman has said?

No. I know that it was twenty seconds because on Zimmerman's call to the police, you can hear him leave his truck and you can hear his breathing settle down immediately after he agrees to stop following Martin which was also immediately after he reported Martin running away.

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

So stalking someone while calling 911 is okay? How was Trayvon to know he was talking to the police?

Following someone on a sidewalk for twenty seconds does not meet Florida's legal definition of stalking.

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

On the night in question, he was just a guy going to the grocery store who spotted womething suspicious and called it in.

Who happened to call 911 46 times in the last year. How many times have you called 911 in your life, let alone in the last year? He clearly had an obsession.

I give up. Who called 911 46 times in the past year? According to the local police department, Zimmerman called them 46 times since 2004 (mostly to their non-emergency line), so I guess that you aren't referring to him.

Also, I'm not sure what the 'obsession' these calls would detail, since most of them are really, really boring. Someone wasn't using car seats, loud music, a few trespassers, a small child walking down a busy road, reckless driving, and on and on.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 16 April 2012 - 09:37 AM

[4wheelin_fool]

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

What I believe is based on the known timeline and locations. Granted, I have no reason to disbelieve the things that Zimmerman said to the police prior to the altercation.

I do, and so do plenty of others. Why would he tell the truth if there were no witnesses?

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Following someone on a sidewalk for twenty seconds does not meet Florida's legal definition of stalking.

I have no reason to believe it was 20 seconds. He was doing nothing wrong, but someone following him around, carrying a gun, and who had an obsession with calling the police apparently did. How do we know that Zimmerman didnt start the fight? From calling the police frequently he knew exactly how long it would take for them to arrive. His brother has also stated that "You don't call the police before you kill someone". So he clearly believed that calling the police first would make him appear innocent, and he could do whatever he wanted before they showed up. Trayvon didn't know that he had a gun. IMO

[GeoBain]

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

I have no reason to believe it was 20 seconds. He was doing nothing wrong, but someone following him around, carrying a gun, and who had an obsession with calling the police apparently did. How do we know that Zimmerman didnt start the fight? From calling the police frequently he knew exactly how long it would take for them to arrive. His brother has also stated that "You don't call the police before you kill someone". So he clearly believed that calling the police first would make him appear innocent, and he could do whatever he wanted before they showed up. Trayvon didn't know that he had a gun. IMO

Have you actually listened to the 911 call? What I hear is not the voice of a man getting ready to kill someone. I could be wrong. But if he was planning to kill Trayvon Martin, he sure was laid back about it.

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

What I believe is based on the known timeline and locations. Granted, I have no reason to disbelieve the things that Zimmerman said to the police prior to the altercation.

I do, and so do plenty of others. Why would he tell the truth if there were no witnesses?

Why would he lie if there was no altercation? How would he lie in any meaningful way? Are you saying that he faked the sound that his car would make when he got out of it or that he was faking breathing heavily so he could run after Martin silently while talking to the police?

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Following someone on a sidewalk for twenty seconds does not meet Florida's legal definition of stalking.

I have no reason to believe it was 20 seconds.

If you've listened to the recording, you would know exactly how long it was.

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

He was doing nothing wrong, but someone following him around, carrying a gun, and who had an obsession with calling the police apparently did.

First, carrying a gun is not against the law, nor does the mere fact that a person has one mean that he is out to murder anyone. Second, you still haven't shown that Zimmerman had any obsession with calling the police or why that would matter, frankly.

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

How do we know that Zimmerman didnt start the fight?

How do you know that he did? Certainly, if we are to believe the girlfriend, Zimmerman did not initiate contact with Martin.

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

From calling the police frequently he knew exactly how long it would take for them to arrive.

How is that? He called the non-emergency number for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes they would make contact with him, sometimes they wouldn't and the amount of time that it took for them to show up had great variation.

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

His brother has also stated that "You don't call the police before you kill someone". So he clearly believed that calling the police first would make him appear innocent, and he could do whatever he wanted before they showed up.

I can't find a correlation between what his moron of a brother said and what you are claiming that he 'believed'.

4wheelin_fool, on 16 April 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Trayvon didn't know that he had a gun. IMO

What's your point? It seems that this fact would serve to bolster the theory that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 16 April 2012 - 09:53 AM

[GeoGeeBee]

Here's a news story from the local media, from right after the incident happened. It paints a much different picture than what we've heard so far:

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=zK3ZdDEfjzg

This video is worth watching because it shows the coverage of the incident before Zimmerman became the most evil person to ever live since Hitler. This coverage is fair and neutral. It features an interview with “John,” the witness who says that he saw the guy in a red sweater(that’s Zimmerman) on the ground being beaten up. There is an unbiased explanation of why there wasn’t enough evidence for a manslaughter charge. One of the points was that detectives said that Trayvon’s father said the voice heard on the 911 call screaming for help wasn’t his son’s.

[TheAlabamaRambler]

The media loves a story with 'legs', one that will keep eyeballs on the story. Facts aren't required if the story has legs.

After the trial when all the facts have come out this story will die a quick death. Until then you will hear some version of it every few hours. Journalists and talking heads hate it when the facts are clear, there is no story.

This post has been edited by TheAlabamaRambler: 16 April 2012 - 10:31 AM

[Colonial Cats]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The media loves a story with 'legs', one that will keep eyeballs on the story. Facts aren't required if the story has legs.

After the trial when all the facts have come out this story will die a quick death. Until then you will hear some version of it every few hours. Journalists and talking heads hate it when the facts are clear, there is no story.

No matter what the outcome of the trial is, there will be riots.

[SwineFlew]

Colonial Cats, on 16 April 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The media loves a story with 'legs', one that will keep eyeballs on the story. Facts aren't required if the story has legs.

After the trial when all the facts have come out this story will die a quick death. Until then you will hear some version of it every few hours. Journalists and talking heads hate it when the facts are clear, there is no story.

No matter what the outcome of the trial is, there will be riots.

That what I fear. Who will be rioting? The same group that pull the race card everytime they dont get their way.

This post has been edited by SwineFlew: 16 April 2012 - 11:41 AM

[TheAlabamaRambler]

Colonial Cats, on 16 April 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The media loves a story with 'legs', one that will keep eyeballs on the story. Facts aren't required if the story has legs.

After the trial when all the facts have come out this story will die a quick death. Until then you will hear some version of it every few hours. Journalists and talking heads hate it when the facts are clear, there is no story.

No matter what the outcome of the trial is, there will be riots.

No there won't. Never confuse what you see online and in the media for reality.This is not and never was a race issue outside of the press.

This post has been edited by TheAlabamaRambler: 16 April 2012 - 11:45 AM

[GeoGeeBee]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Colonial Cats, on 16 April 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The media loves a story with 'legs', one that will keep eyeballs on the story. Facts aren't required if the story has legs.

After the trial when all the facts have come out this story will die a quick death. Until then you will hear some version of it every few hours. Journalists and talking heads hate it when the facts are clear, there is no story.

No matter what the outcome of the trial is, there will be riots.

No there won't. Never confuse what you see online and in the media for reality.This is not and never was a race issue outside of the press.

Not a race issue? Really?

http://www.newsmax.c...04/12/id/435703
Americans are deeply divided by race over the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, with 91 percent of African Americans saying he was unjustly killed while just 35 percent of whites thought so, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.

This has been nothing but a race issue from the very beginning.

[sbell111]

GeoGeeBee, on 16 April 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Colonial Cats, on 16 April 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The media loves a story with 'legs', one that will keep eyeballs on the story. Facts aren't required if the story has legs.

After the trial when all the facts have come out this story will die a quick death. Until then you will hear some version of it every few hours. Journalists and talking heads hate it when the facts are clear, there is no story.

No matter what the outcome of the trial is, there will be riots.

No there won't. Never confuse what you see online and in the media for reality.This is not and never was a race issue outside of the press.

Not a race issue? Really?

http://www.newsmax.c...04/12/id/435703
Americans are deeply divided by race over the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, with 91 percent of African Americans saying he was unjustly killed while just 35 percent of whites thought so, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.

This has been nothing but a race issue from the very beginning.

Not from the VERY beginnning, but certainly for the last few weeks since the story has been plastered all over the media.

[TheAlabamaRambler]

GeoGeeBee, on 16 April 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Not a race issue? Really?

http://www.newsmax.c...04/12/id/435703
Americans are deeply divided by race over the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, with 91 percent of African Americans saying he was unjustly killed while just 35 percent of whites thought so, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.

This has been nothing but a race issue from the very beginning.

I don't believe that the incident was about race. The media coverage has been about nothing but. And quoting the media to prove the point is a hoot.

[GeoGeeBee]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

GeoGeeBee, on 16 April 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Not a race issue? Really?

http://www.newsmax.c...04/12/id/435703
Americans are deeply divided by race over the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, with 91 percent of African Americans saying he was unjustly killed while just 35 percent of whites thought so, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday.

This has been nothing but a race issue from the very beginning.

I don't believe that the incident was about race. The media coverage has been about nothing but. And quoting the media to prove the point is a hoot.

Oh, now I see what you mean. I agree.

The original incident was not about race. Zimmerman didn't "racially profile" Martin, and didn't shoot him for being black.

But the frenzy that has resulted is all about race. The media is only partly responsible, though. The media started out by reporting on material that was provided them by the lawyer hired by Trayvon's parents. Then the usual crowd of race-hustlers (Sharpton, Jackson, Obama) got on board and whipped the masses into a frenzy. When the New Black Panther Party put a price on Zimmerman's head, THAT was about race. And the fact that no law enforcement body, from the US Attorney General on down, has seen fit to prosecute the NBPP is also about race.

[TheAlabamaRambler]

GeoGeeBee, on 16 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

...Zimmerman didn't "racially profile" Martin...

Well, he probably did, but so do I. Profiling in and of itself when based on experience and fact isn't always a bad thing. When someone stands out from the norm it behooves you to pay attention to them.

[knowschad]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

GeoGeeBee, on 16 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

...Zimmerman didn't "racially profile" Martin...

Well, he probably did, but so do I. Profiling in and of itself when based on experience and fact isn't always a bad thing. When someone stands out from the norm it behooves you to pay attention to them.

Yup. I doubt that he was racially profiling him... I suspect it was more a matter of age profiling. Or perhaps hoodie and pants-on-the-ground profiling. I do the same thing. The difference is that I don't shoot anybody because of it.

On another note, I don't know enough about neighborhood watch groups (not a thing, actually) to know if this is typical or not, but I found this online while looking for guidelines for neighborhood watch groups:

• Participants have no police powers.
• Participants will carry no weapons while on patrol.
• Participants will always obey laws.
• Participants will OBSERVE and REPORT. This is a non-confrontational program.

[TheAlabamaRambler]

knowschad, on 16 April 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Yup. I doubt that he was racially profiling him... I suspect it was more a matter of age profiling. Or perhaps hoodie and pants-on-the-ground profiling. I do the same thing. The difference is that I don't shoot anybody because of it.

I doubt he shot Martin because of it. Profiling likely brought Martin to Zimmerman's attention, but events as they played out resulted in the shooting. I do not believe Martin was shot for being black.

[Harry Dolphin]

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Harry Dolphin, on 13 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

so... Based on biased reporting, and supposition. (I do not watch TV news. That is far too biased. I read my local paper, The Star-Ledger. It is biased too, but not into the sound bites of TV. Longer stories...)
Of course, Mr. Martin is not here to present his side of the story.
Gated community... No geocaches involved. Mr. Martin did not live there. He was visiting. Mr. Zimmerman appointed himself 'guardian'. No authority.

He was actually appointed by the other residents, but that doesn’t matter. On the night in question, he was just a guy going to the grocery store who spotted womething suspicious and called it in.

It is certainly great that you and the loveable green dragon are able to produce 'facts' not supported by anything that I have read in the paper. Yet, you and she continue to provide unsupported evidence as fact.
I guess this is why the case needs to go to trial. Actual facts might be presented! Rather than 'facts' from Fox.

[sbell111]

Harry Dolphin, on 16 April 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

sbell111, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Harry Dolphin, on 13 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

so... Based on biased reporting, and supposition. (I do not watch TV news. That is far too biased. I read my local paper, The Star-Ledger. It is biased too, but not into the sound bites of TV. Longer stories...)
Of course, Mr. Martin is not here to present his side of the story.
Gated community... No geocaches involved. Mr. Martin did not live there. He was visiting. Mr. Zimmerman appointed himself 'guardian'. No authority.

He was actually appointed by the other residents, but that doesn’t matter. On the night in question, he was just a guy going to the grocery store who spotted womething suspicious and called it in.

It is certainly great that you and the loveable green dragon are able to produce 'facts' not supported by anything that I have read in the paper. Yet, you and she continue to provide unsupported evidence as fact.
I guess this is why the case needs to go to trial. Actual facts might be presented! Rather than 'facts' from Fox.

What are you disputing that I presented as fact? The 'fact' that he wasn't 'on duty' as neighborhood watch at the time of the incident?
Not that it matters, but it was widely reported that he was going to the grocery store at the time of the incident. According to his father, he was texting his sister just before and told her that he was going to the grocery store.

PS. I don't watch Fox, if I can avoid it.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 16 April 2012 - 08:30 PM

[bittsen]

My only facts come from the eyewitnesses and the police phone calls.

Anything else is speculation and hearsay.

[Snoogans]

knowschad, on 16 April 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

GeoGeeBee, on 16 April 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

...Zimmerman didn't "racially profile" Martin...

Well, he probably did, but so do I. Profiling in and of itself when based on experience and fact isn't always a bad thing. When someone stands out from the norm it behooves you to pay attention to them.

Yup. I doubt that he was racially profiling him... I suspect it was more a matter of age profiling. Or perhaps hoodie and pants-on-the-ground profiling. I do the same thing. The difference is that I don't shoot anybody because of it.

On another note, I don't know enough about neighborhood watch groups (not a thing, actually) to know if this is typical or not, but I found this online while looking for guidelines for neighborhood watch groups:

• Participants have no police powers.
• Participants will carry no weapons while on patrol.
• Participants will always obey laws.
• Participants will OBSERVE and REPORT. This is a non-confrontational program.

Can't speak for Florida but I would almost bet that most/all states have an offense within view law that states there is no duty to retreat when a felony or greater offense is committed whithin ANY citizen's view. Every citizen has the right to make an arrest under offense within view, but the person arrested must go before a magistrate or the arresting citizen is in deep doo doo legally.

I agree with the rest, but #2 could be seen to conflict with right to carry laws and Florida has always been progressive when it comes to the right to carry.

[sbell111]

Either way, if he wasn't actually on a scheduled neighborhood watch patrol, the 'no weapons' guideline doesn't apply to him.

[knowschad]

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Either way, if he wasn't actually on a scheduled neighborhood watch patrol, the 'no weapons' guideline doesn't apply to him.

Ah... so, scheduling a patrol actually limits their powers and rights? No wonder his group wasn't registered and that patrol wasn't officially scheduled!

I am very surprised to find so many "suspicious looking" geocachers defending the actions of this guy. I know that I sure as hell don't want him "patrolling" the neighborhoods that I may geocache in!

[TheAlabamaRambler]

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Either way, if he wasn't actually on a scheduled neighborhood watch patrol, the 'no weapons' guideline doesn't apply to him.

Ah... so, scheduling a patrol actually limits their powers and rights? No wonder his group wasn't registered and that patrol wasn't officially scheduled!

I am very surprised to find so many "suspicious looking" geocachers defending the actions of this guy. I know that I sure as hell don't want him "patrolling" the neighborhoods that I may geocache in!

Why? When someone asks you what you are doing do you argue with them and when they leave run after them and attack them? If not you probably don't have anything to worry about.

[knowschad]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 17 April 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Either way, if he wasn't actually on a scheduled neighborhood watch patrol, the 'no weapons' guideline doesn't apply to him.

Ah... so, scheduling a patrol actually limits their powers and rights? No wonder his group wasn't registered and that patrol wasn't officially scheduled!

I am very surprised to find so many "suspicious looking" geocachers defending the actions of this guy. I know that I sure as hell don't want him "patrolling" the neighborhoods that I may geocache in!

Why? When someone asks you what you are doing do you argue with them and when they leave run after them and attack them? If not you probably don't have anything to worry about.

Oh, we know that is what happened in this case? I didn't realize that was no longer under scrutiny.

[sbell111]

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Either way, if he wasn't actually on a scheduled neighborhood watch patrol, the 'no weapons' guideline doesn't apply to him.

Ah... so, scheduling a patrol actually limits their powers and rights?

Their powers and rights as citizens do not change regardless of whether they are on patrol. I was simply commenting on the guideline that you posted: Participants will carry no weapons while on patrol.

Given that he wasn't 'on patrol' during the altercation, that guideline doesn't apply even if it did mean anything legally, which it does not.

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

No wonder his group wasn't registered and that patrol wasn't officially scheduled!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'his group wasn't registered'. They were involved in regular neighborhood watch meetings with the local police, after all.

It should also be noted that some neighborhood watch groups don't patrol, al all. Regardless of whether this group did, certainly the mere fact that you have left your home doesn't mean that you are 'on patrol'.

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

I am very surprised to find so many "suspicious looking" geocachers defending the actions of this guy. I know that I sure as hell don't want him "patrolling" the neighborhoods that I may geocache in!

Every time you go out geocaching (or anything else, I suppose), you run the risk of looking suspicious to someone. If someone challenges you, it's probably best to simply explain the game rather than to punch him in the nose and slam his head into the sidewalk.

[sbell111]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

Colonial Cats, on 16 April 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 16 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

The media loves a story with 'legs', one that will keep eyeballs on the story. Facts aren't required if the story has legs.

After the trial when all the facts have come out this story will die a quick death. Until then you will hear some version of it every few hours. Journalists and talking heads hate it when the facts are clear, there is no story.

No matter what the outcome of the trial is, there will be riots.

No there won't. Never confuse what you see online and in the media for reality.This is not and never was a race issue outside of the press.

I hope that you are correct, but it certainly appears that we are wandering toward mindless violence.

[sbell111]

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

TheAlabamaRambler, on 17 April 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Either way, if he wasn't actually on a scheduled neighborhood watch patrol, the 'no weapons' guideline doesn't apply to him.

Ah... so, scheduling a patrol actually limits their powers and rights? No wonder his group wasn't registered and that patrol wasn't officially scheduled!

I am very surprised to find so many "suspicious looking" geocachers defending the actions of this guy. I know that I sure as hell don't want him "patrolling" the neighborhoods that I may geocache in!

Why? When someone asks you what you are doing do you argue with them and when they leave run after them and attack them? If not you probably don't have anything to worry about.

Oh, we know that is what happened in this case? I didn't realize that was no longer under scrutiny.

We have tons of facts in this case; the locations and timeline among them. Given these locations and timeline, Zimmerman couldn't have chased Martin down and shot him where he did. Martin had to have circled back on Zimmerman as he did just a few minutes earlier.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 17 April 2012 - 05:52 AM

[knowschad]

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Either way, if he wasn't actually on a scheduled neighborhood watch patrol, the 'no weapons' guideline doesn't apply to him.

Ah... so, scheduling a patrol actually limits their powers and rights?

Their powers and rights as citizens do not change regardless of whether they are on patrol. I was simply commenting on the guideline that you posted: Participants will carry no weapons while on patrol.

Given that he wasn't 'on patrol' during the altercation, that guideline doesn't apply even if it did mean anything legally, which it does not.

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

No wonder his group wasn't registered and that patrol wasn't officially scheduled!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'his group wasn't registered'. They were involved in regular neighborhood watch meetings with the local police, after all.

It should also be noted that some neighborhood watch groups don't patrol, al all. Regardless of whether this group did, certainly the mere fact that you have left your home doesn't mean that you are 'on patrol'.

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

I am very surprised to find so many "suspicious looking" geocachers defending the actions of this guy. I know that I sure as hell don't want him "patrolling" the neighborhoods that I may geocache in!

Every time you go out geocaching (or anything else, I suppose), you run the risk of looking suspicious to someone. If someone challenges you, it's probably best to simply explain the game rather than to punch him in the nose and slam his head into the sidewalk.

I read someplace that his group was not registered with the police. That's not a very strong reference, I know, but its all I've got.

We still don't know if Trayvon did actually attack Zimmerman, and if he did... why? As both you and Ed have pointed out, that is not the reaction most normal people would take under the circumstances as we understand them to be. I do know, however, many people that would attack me if I called their mother certain names. We don't know the story here, and likely never will, since one of the witnesses is dead and buried without as much as a forensic investigation of the victim first.

[sbell111]

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

We still don't know if Trayvon did actually attack Zimmerman, and if he did... why? As both you and Ed have pointed out, that is not the reaction most normal people would take under the circumstances as we understand them to be.

Seventeen year olds often don't act the same as 'most normal people'. Certainly, seventeen year olds from an area with high violent crime may act quite differently than 'most normal people'.

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

I do know, however, many people that would attack me if I called their mother certain names. We don't know the story here, and likely never will, since one of the witnesses is dead and buried without as much as a forensic investigation of the victim first.

Where are you getting the bolded information? What I read was that an autopsy was performed by the Volusia County medical examiner.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 17 April 2012 - 06:22 AM

[knowschad]

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

We still don't know if Trayvon did actually attack Zimmerman, and if he did... why? As both you and Ed have pointed out, that is not the reaction most normal people would take under the circumstances as we understand them to be.

Seventeen year olds often don't act the same as 'most normal people'. Certainly, seventeen year olds from an area with high violent crime may act quite different than 'most normal people'.

knowschad, on 17 April 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

I do know, however, many people that would attack me if I called their mother certain names. We don't know the story here, and likely never will, since one of the witnesses is dead and buried without as much as a forensic investigation of the victim first.

Where are you getting the bolded information? What I read was that an autopsy was performed by the Volusia County medical examiner.

Yup, you're right. I was basing my assumption* on the fact that the mortician reported no bruises on Trayvon's hands. I assumed* that if he was coming out with that information, that there was no official statement to refute or corroborate his observation. As it turns out, there was an autopsy, but as of March 28, the results had not been released: http://www.dailykos....-Autopsy-Report I stand corrected. (I think a post somewhere upthread also said something that reinforced my assumption)





*yeah, I know. I had the same 3rd grade teacher.

[4wheelin_fool]

The question is "who instigated the fight?" The unarmed kid who was doing nothing wrong, or the unemployed guy with a history of violence patrolling the neighborhood with a gun?


Zimmerman has several arrests for violence; a felony charge for assaulting a police officer, domestic battery, and was fired from a job for being too aggressive. It appears that since his father is retired Supreme Court Magistrate Judge, the charges were all dropped.

Quote

Zimmerman, the 28-year-old Sanford, Fla., neighborhood watch volunteer who shot the unarmed 17-year-old Martin to death last month, was fired from a job securing illegal house parties for “being too aggressive,” according to the New York Daily News, which quoted a former colleague of Zimmerman’s. According to the co-worker, Zimmerman worked for two agencies that provided security for house parties from 2001 to 2005.

“Usually he was just a cool guy,” said the former co-worker, who the newspaper didn't name. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When dude snapped, he snapped.” The Daily News said Zimmerman earned $50 to $100 a night for the parties. He was fired for being too aggressive with patrons.

“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the newspaper quoted the former co-worker as saying. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”

Quote

In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

Quote

Also in 2005, Zimmerman was involved in a bitter domestic violence incident with his ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo. In that case, Zuazo filed for a restraining order against Zimmerman, who she said snatched her cell phone from her hand and pushed her during an argument. The next day, both filed court petitions accusing the other of violence.

According to the Miami Herald, Zuazo said that three years earlier, Zimmerman attacked her while the two were driving to a counseling session. Zuazo said she popped her gum in his face and he repeatedly smacked her in the face. In January 2002, she added, Zimmerman became enraged that she had come home late. They wrestled and he threw her on the bed, smacking her, according to the newspaper.

In September 2003, Zimmerman called police and reported that another motorist spat on him, according to reports, Zimmerman followed the man in his car until the police arrived. Daniel Osmun, the other driver, told police that Zimmerman was tailgating and that he spit his gum out the window "out of frustration."

Osum said that Zimmerman then pulled alongside of him, and the two argued. In a police report of the incident, Osum said “at one point, he thought Mr. Zimmerman was going to attack him." No charges were filed against either man.

He sounds very violent, but believes this is just another mess that Daddy Judge is going to get him out of. This is the story of the unemployed man with a history of violence, patrolling the neighborhood with a gun and questioning anyone that does not fit in.

I was wrong about the 46 calls to 911 in the last year, they were over 8 years. Every 2 months for 8 years he made a call to the police, on average.

This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 17 April 2012 - 07:19 AM

[sbell111]

Are you now going to post Martin's history in order to be 'fair and balanced'?

[4wheelin_fool]

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you now going to post Martin's history in order to be 'fair and balanced'?

I was waiting for you to do that.

The question is "which guy has a history of violence?"

Martin may have gotten into trouble for theft, but since nothing was stolen that night, it really is not important. The issue is the fight.

This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 17 April 2012 - 07:39 AM

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

He sounds very violent, but believes this is just another mess that Daddy Judge is going to get him out of. This is the story of the unemployed man with a history of violence, patrolling the neighborhood with a gun and questioning anyone that does not fit in.

I was wrong about the 46 calls to 911 in the last year, they were over 8 years. Every 2 months for 8 years he made a call to the police, on average.

Would it surprise you that you are wrong about other things, also? For instance, you appear to be trying to show him in a certain light by saying that he was unemployed. However, that's simply not true. He was an underwriter for a mortgage company at the time of the shooting.

It should also be noted that there is quite a difference between being arrested and being convicted. Similarly, rumors spread by coworkers from long-ago job who may not know all or any facts are not impressive. I personally find it amusing that the things that are being dredged up about Zimmerman are close to ten years old, when he was Martin's age. As I said, teenagers can be unpredictable.

Finally, could you please link to anything which supports your argument that his father, a judge in another state, got him out of any trouble?

[GeoGeeBee]

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you now going to post Martin's history in order to be 'fair and balanced'?

I was waiting for you to do that.

The question is "which guy has a history of violence?"

Martin may have gotten into trouble for theft, but since nothing was stolen that night, it really is not important. The issue is the fight.

You called Martin "the kid who was doing nothing wrong." But he appeared to Zimmerman to be casing the houses, and he did have a history of being in possession of burglar tools and women's jewelry.

His twitter feed indicates that he may have punched a bus driver, too.

It will be interesting to see what comes out in the trial.

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you now going to post Martin's history in order to be 'fair and balanced'?

I was waiting for you to do that.

The question is "which guy has a history of violence?"

I'm not sure that I would call shoving someone while drunk in a bar, bouncing someone while acting as a bouncer, and 'he said/she said' with an old girlfriend a 'history' of violence.

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

Martin may have gotten into trouble for theft, but since nothing was stolen that night, it really is not important. The issue is the fight.

Martin's known trouble has not been just about theft. He has suspensions for theft, destruction of property, graffiti, and drugs. These issues certainly speak to his respect for others, whether he generally makes 'bad' decisions and, perhaps, his state of mind on that night.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 17 April 2012 - 07:51 AM

[4wheelin_fool]

GeoGeeBee, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you now going to post Martin's history in order to be 'fair and balanced'?

I was waiting for you to do that.

The question is "which guy has a history of violence?"

Martin may have gotten into trouble for theft, but since nothing was stolen that night, it really is not important. The issue is the fight.

You called Martin "the kid who was doing nothing wrong." But he appeared to Zimmerman to be casing the houses, and he did have a history of being in possession of burglar tools and women's jewelry.

His twitter feed indicates that he may have punched a bus driver, too.

It will be interesting to see what comes out in the trial.

He was doing nothing wrong that night. There is no evidence of any break-ins or anything stolen.

However, let's assume the worst. Perhaps he may have been casing the neighborhood, selling marijuana, and punched a bus driver earlier that day.




Does that mean he should be killed?

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

GeoGeeBee, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you now going to post Martin's history in order to be 'fair and balanced'?

I was waiting for you to do that.

The question is "which guy has a history of violence?"

Martin may have gotten into trouble for theft, but since nothing was stolen that night, it really is not important. The issue is the fight.

You called Martin "the kid who was doing nothing wrong." But he appeared to Zimmerman to be casing the houses, and he did have a history of being in possession of burglar tools and women's jewelry.

His twitter feed indicates that he may have punched a bus driver, too.

It will be interesting to see what comes out in the trial.

He was doing nothing wrong that night. There is no evidence of any break-ins or anything stolen.

However, let's assume the worst. Perhaps he may have been casing the neighborhood, selling marijuana, and punched a bus driver earlier that day.




Does that mean he should be killed?

While the word 'should' in that question could certainly be debated, if Martin also slammed Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, yes. His killing was justified. In that scenario, Martin would be using deadly force and he 'should' expect that it be used against him.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 17 April 2012 - 07:57 AM

[4wheelin_fool]

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

GeoGeeBee, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Are you now going to post Martin's history in order to be 'fair and balanced'?

I was waiting for you to do that.

The question is "which guy has a history of violence?"

Martin may have gotten into trouble for theft, but since nothing was stolen that night, it really is not important. The issue is the fight.

You called Martin "the kid who was doing nothing wrong." But he appeared to Zimmerman to be casing the houses, and he did have a history of being in possession of burglar tools and women's jewelry.

His twitter feed indicates that he may have punched a bus driver, too.

It will be interesting to see what comes out in the trial.

He was doing nothing wrong that night. There is no evidence of any break-ins or anything stolen.

However, let's assume the worst. Perhaps he may have been casing the neighborhood, selling marijuana, and punched a bus driver earlier that day.




Does that mean he should be killed?

If he also slammed Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, yes.

No, it doesn't.

Especially if Zimmerman instigated the entire incident. If his daddy was not a judge and he was convicted of his crimes, he would have never been allowed to carry that weapon.

[4wheelin_fool]

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Finally, could you please link to anything which supports your argument that his father, a judge in another state, got him out of any trouble?

It dovetails nicely into his behavior pattern.

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

Especially if Zimmerman instigated the entire incident. If his daddy was not a judge and he was convicted of his crimes, he would have never been allowed to carry that weapon.

Your post is all supposition.

First, it's not true that in Florida a conviction for a violent crime means that you can't get a CWP. People with felonies can't get one (in most circumstances) but people with violent misdemeanors merely have to wait three years after adjudication.

That being said, Zimmerman has never been convicted of anything. Your assertion that this is because his father was a judge in Virginia doesn't make any sense and doesn't appear to be supported in any way.

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

sbell111, on 17 April 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Finally, could you please link to anything which supports your argument that his father, a judge in another state, got him out of any trouble?

It dovetails nicely into his behavior pattern.

What behavior pattern?

1. Ten years ago, he was a bouncer
2. Seven years ago, he was drunk in a bar and shoved a cop.
3. Seven years ago, he and an ex-girlfriend played dueling restraining orders.
4. Nine years ago, another driver apparently spit his gum out in his general direction. (I find it funny that his response to it was to call the cops and you are using it as an example of his violently taking things into his own hands.)

Where's the pattern?

This post has been edited by sbell111: 17 April 2012 - 08:28 AM

[Road Rabbit]

All of this is speculative and pointless, at best. Sort of like the media reports. Until the evidence (forensic, electronic and ballistic) is weighed in court against the events as related by the only surviving participant, there can be no conclusive resolution. See my forum signature below.

[sbell111]

4wheelin_fool, on 17 April 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

I was wrong about the 46 calls to 911 in the last year, they were over 8 years. Every 2 months for 8 years he made a call to the police, on average.

You were also wrong about those calls being made to 911. Most were made to the non-emergency line.