|
Post by trubble on Apr 10, 2012 21:52:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 11, 2012 3:05:21 GMT
It appears to me that Zimmerman wants people to empathize with his killing of a teen. He should be ashamed. Hi Captain! Zimmerman, guilty or innocent, has a family to feed and because of the shooting he's out of work. At least one witness exonerated Zimmerman and said Martin decked him with one punch and started banging his head on the pavement and this alledgedly led to the fatal shooting. I'm sure the DA will press charges against Zimmerman, if she feels his claim of self defense can be disproved!Anna - Zimmerman, guilty or innocent, has made some decisions that IMO show a reckless irresponsibility. A irresponsibility that has resulted in a death.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 7:06:09 GMT
Anna posted.:-Zimmerman, guilty or innocent, has a family to feed and because of the shooting he's out of work. Toby comments.;- You really have to feel sorry for him for after all he was a Volunteer Neighbourhood Watchman, so he was trying to do the right thing for his neighbours and it does seem he was keen to become a good American. Tayvon on the other hand ........................................ Trayvon on the other hand was doing what? Wandering around a housing estate chatting to his girlfriend on a cellphone, so far as I can see, not far from his girlfriend's house.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 11, 2012 10:27:41 GMT
(small correction: he was on his way to his father's girlfriend's house where he was staying). Skylark, I see that you and I seem to agree on this. It's hard for me to get to grips with the concept of gun ownership. I see the gun as the problem, but I have to keep reminding myself that Zimmerman had a perfect right to be carrying a gun. I'm very interested, then, in trying to understand the 'stand your ground' law: I read a blog that slated the law, saying it was written in such a way that would create more 'zimmermans' but could never protect a 'trayvon'. I found this article from the Huffington Post: The Truth About "Stand Your Ground" Laws Sadly, some are exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting to target self-defense laws that protect innocent lives. These laws safeguard law-abiding and peaceable citizens, and are not to blame in the tragic Florida incident. Stand your ground laws did not apply in that situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed.
In some states the law imposes a duty to retreat from physical confrontations. Whether in your home or on the street, if you fought back, you might be prosecuted as a criminal.
This duty was a terrible law. It required you to turn your back on an assailant. Even if he doesn't have a gun to shoot you in the back, if he's faster he could attack you from behind, where it is extremely difficult to effectively respond.
Some states did not impose this absurd rule. To the contrary, other states took a commonsense approach to self-defense, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Beard v. U.S. endorsed as early as 1895, when the Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, "not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as ... [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury."
In states that rejected this commonsense principle, one legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine. The duty to retreat in some states required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader, leaving all your possessions to the invader and possibly endangering others.
Castle Doctrine comes from the maxim that "a man's home is his castle." The idea is that if someone breaks into your home, rather than worry about how much evidence there is that he intends you harm and whether you could prove it in a court of law, that the law presumes you have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm and can respond accordingly.
Castle Doctrine doesn't apply if you're in a public place, however, and there is no legal presumption in public that you can reasonably assume someone is trying to kill you. Instead, some states have created a lesser form of protection in public places, called "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) laws. This is the law that has been mentioned in connection with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting.
But the law is not what you have heard reported by the media. Florida's SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force -- including deadly force -- against his attacker if he "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm... or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It's not just that you're under attack. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, including rape.
Second, it's not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.
Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you're attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows.
And fourth, it doesn't apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.
Under any version of the facts, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman's account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.
To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.
The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 11, 2012 14:43:04 GMT
Zimmerman chaos!?!?The following is an edited article from thejournal.ie: Click here for link to thejournal.ie article >>><<<THE MAN WHO fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is said to be losing weight, suffering from high levels of stress and unable even to perform the simple task of buying a soda at a grocery store because of the intense public scrutiny he is under, his former lawyers say. “He is largely alone. You might even say he is emotionally crippled by virtue of the pressure of this case,” said Hal Uhrig, a former lawyer for George Zimmerman. The protests and the profound isolation of going into hiding may have pushed him “a little bit over the edge,” said Uhrig and his colleague, Craig Sonner. The two attorneys announced yesterday they no longer were representing the neighborhood watch volunteer because they haven’t heard from him since Sunday. “As of the last couple days, he has not returned phone calls, text messages or emails,” Sonner said. “He’s gone on his own. I’m not sure what he’s doing or who he’s talking to. “I cannot go forward speaking to the public about George Zimmerman and this case as representing him because I’ve lost contact with him.” Against their advice, the attorneys said Zimmerman contacted special prosecutor Angela Corey, who will decide if he should face charges, but prosecutors in her office refused to talk to him without his lawyers present. “To handle it this way, suggests that he may not be in complete control of what’s going on. We’re concerned for his emotional and physical safety,” Uhrig said. Self-defence claim ... Zimmerman said he shot Martin in self-defence after following the teenager in a Sanford, Florida a gated community outside Orlando on 26 February. He said he was returning to his truck when Martin attacked him and that he shot the unarmed teen during the fight. He wasn’t arrested partly because of Florida’s “stand your ground” self-defence law. ... Zimmerman is unable to see a psychologist because he could be spotted. A bounty for his arrest has been issued by the New Black Panther Party. Plus, he is anxious about possible charges if the special prosecutor believes he committed a crime, his attorneys said. Zimmerman also has been in touch with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, who declined to reveal Tuesday evening what was said. Uhrig said after they found out that news, the “final straw” came when they learned Zimmerman contacted Corey’s office and said he wanted to meet. Uhrig said he told her he no longer had attorneys whom he called “legal advisers” representing him. Uhrig said they were “a bit astonished” that he had contacted her on his own and that Corey and her team refused to talk to a potential defendant or suspect without counsel. Zimmerman’s current lack of an attorney shouldn’t affect the speed of Corey’s decision-making since any decent lawyer would advise a client not to talk to prosecutors, said Roy Kahn, a defense attorney in Miami. “It would not be in a client’s best interest to give any statement before it’s his time to testify at trial,” Kahn said. “Even if I believe he’s 100 percent innocent … my advice to the client would be, ‘Save it for the trial. It can’t help you.’” Sonner, the first attorney Zimmerman contacted after the shooting, said he agreed to take the case on a pro bono basis until Zimmerman is perhaps charged. He said he has never talked to Zimmerman face-to-face, only on the phone, and that the 28-year-old man has gone into hiding but that he believes he’s still in the U.S. Both attorneys said they’d be willing to represent him again if he asks. Meanwhile, tensions were rising in Sanford as townspeople awaited the prosecutor’s decision. Someone shot up an unoccupied police car early Tuesday as it sat outside the neighborhood where Martin was killed. And a demonstration by college students closed the town’s police station on Monday. Some residents said they worry there will be violence if Corey decides not to charge Zimmerman. ... ‘Not helpful’ Zimmerman set up a website therealgeorgezimmerman.com to collect money from his supporters, but the attorneys didn’t know about it until they started getting questions from the news media, Sonner said. They had worked with his father and others to set up a different account and when they started getting questions about the new site, Uhrig assumed it was “bogus.” Since then, they determined the site is legitimate. Sonner said he stands behind his statements that Zimmerman did act in self-defence, however, “I just can’t proceed to represent a client who doesn’t stay in contact with me.” Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. Attorney in Miami, said it is unusual for attorneys to hold a news conference to explain why they no longer are representing a client. “The lawyers have every right to withdraw, but it’s highly unusual, and it will be controversial, for counsel to describe their client’s erratic behavior,” said Coffey, who is now in private practice. “In the court of public opinion, the press conference was not helpful for George Zimmerman.”
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 17:09:30 GMT
A client doesn't return calls for two days and you sack him? Mind you, if they were working for nothing I can kind of undeerstand it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 11, 2012 21:03:38 GMT
A client doesn't return calls for two days and you sack him? Mind you, if they were working for nothing I can kind of undeerstand it. they WERE working pro bono, but nonetheless, it was not just his not returning calls. it was his trying to personally contact the prosecutor, and his calling sean hannity at fox news. it was also his setting up another web site other than the one the attorneys set up for him without consulting them. zimmerman has NO business talking to anyone at all except his attorneys. when you choose to be stupid and not follow instructions, you get canned
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 11, 2012 21:07:33 GMT
(small correction: he was on his way to his father's girlfriend's house where he was staying). Skylark, I see that you and I seem to agree on this. It's hard for me to get to grips with the concept of gun ownership. I see the gun as the problem, but I have to keep reminding myself that Zimmerman had a perfect right to be carrying a gun. I'm very interested, then, in trying to understand the 'stand your ground' law: I read a blog that slated the law, saying it was written in such a way that would create more 'zimmermans' but could never protect a 'trayvon'. I found this article from the Huffington Post: The Truth About "Stand Your Ground" Laws Sadly, some are exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting to target self-defense laws that protect innocent lives. These laws safeguard law-abiding and peaceable citizens, and are not to blame in the tragic Florida incident. Stand your ground laws did not apply in that situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed.
In some states the law imposes a duty to retreat from physical confrontations. Whether in your home or on the street, if you fought back, you might be prosecuted as a criminal.
This duty was a terrible law. It required you to turn your back on an assailant. Even if he doesn't have a gun to shoot you in the back, if he's faster he could attack you from behind, where it is extremely difficult to effectively respond.
Some states did not impose this absurd rule. To the contrary, other states took a commonsense approach to self-defense, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Beard v. U.S. endorsed as early as 1895, when the Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, "not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as ... [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury."
In states that rejected this commonsense principle, one legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine. The duty to retreat in some states required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader, leaving all your possessions to the invader and possibly endangering others.
Castle Doctrine comes from the maxim that "a man's home is his castle." The idea is that if someone breaks into your home, rather than worry about how much evidence there is that he intends you harm and whether you could prove it in a court of law, that the law presumes you have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm and can respond accordingly.
Castle Doctrine doesn't apply if you're in a public place, however, and there is no legal presumption in public that you can reasonably assume someone is trying to kill you. Instead, some states have created a lesser form of protection in public places, called "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) laws. This is the law that has been mentioned in connection with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting.
But the law is not what you have heard reported by the media. Florida's SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force -- including deadly force -- against his attacker if he "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm... or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It's not just that you're under attack. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, including rape.
Second, it's not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.
Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you're attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows.
And fourth, it doesn't apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.
Under any version of the facts, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman's account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.
To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.
The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
why would you have any problem understanding the stand your ground laws. it is simple common sense. the only thing that stand your ground laws do is to extend the castle doctrine to your car, or business, or wherever you might happen to be when confronted by garbage. there is NO rational reason, under ANY circumstances, to back down from a worthless piece of shyt. the ONLY intelligent thing to do is to pull your gun and blow the punk away. if it tries to carjack you, you kill it. if it tries to break into your house, you kill it. if it pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, you kill it. that is the ONLY morally proper response that there is
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 11, 2012 21:30:55 GMT
A client doesn't return calls for two days and you sack him? Mind you, if they were working for nothing I can kind of undeerstand it. they WERE working pro bono, but nonetheless, it was not just his not returning calls. it was his trying to personally contact the prosecutor, and his calling sean hannity at fox news. it was also his setting up another web site other than the one the attorneys set up for him without consulting them. zimmerman has NO business talking to anyone at all except his attorneys. when you choose to be stupid and not follow instructions, you get canned Jumbo - These attorneys are classic ambulance chasers trying to get a high profile case. Did you know that they've never met Zimmerman face-to-face? Their communications were mostly via text messaging on a cell phone. I think they were not the right attorneys for Zimmerman, and apparently he thinks so too. Hard to say how this will play out. The prosecutor may charge him with manslaughter which only requires a presumption of guilt. To actually be convicted, he would need to go through a jury trial with all twelve jurors voting guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There may be evidence we haven't seen or don't know about, but based on what's been reported thus far, I don't think 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is in the cards. By the way, calling Sean Hannity makes a lot of sense. Zimmerman has to feel like he's been tried and convicted in the liberal media without his side of the story being fairly considered. He knows that Fox News is the only really fair and balanced news outlet. So it is very logical that he would contact them to get his side of the story out.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Apr 12, 2012 1:47:55 GMT
Well...he's been charged with second degree murder......trying to get a fair trial will be a chore.....but maybe now some of the lynch mobs can go back home.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 12, 2012 4:58:15 GMT
Hi Captain! Zimmerman, guilty or innocent, has a family to feed and because of the shooting he's out of work. At least one witness exonerated Zimmerman and said Martin decked him with one punch and started banging his head on the pavement and this alledgedly led to the fatal shooting. I'm sure the DA will press charges against Zimmerman, if she feels his claim of self defense can be disproved! Anna - Zimmerman, guilty or innocent, has made some decisions that IMO show a reckless irresponsibility. A irresponsibility that has resulted in a death. Dearest Captain, Hopefully the impending trial will reveal the truth as to how this tragedy really occured!
I'm sure that if Mr. Zimmerman were Black and Trayvon Martin were White and got shot while bashing the Black Mr. Zimmerman the "activists" like Rev. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their crowd would be fiercely defending the Black Mr. Zimmerman, if all the circumstances were the same! They'd be screaming racism and saying a Black man isn't allowed to defend himself against a White man's beating.
www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/26/trayvon-martins-killer-claims-teen-punched-him-slammed-his-head-into-ground/ QUOTE: The Sentinel said Monday that authorities had provided the paper with Zimmerman's account of events, in which he said he called police after spotting Martin, then lost sight of him and was returning to his SUV when the teen allegedly approached him from the left rear and they exchanged words.
Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the nose, then as he fell to the ground, got on top of him and slammed his head into the sidewalk, causing Zimmerman to yell for help.
The paper said at least one witness told police he saw Martin pounding Zimmerman.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 12, 2012 10:11:54 GMT
Well...he's been charged with second degree murder......trying to get a fair trial will be a chore.....but maybe now some of the lynch mobs can go back home. that surprises me. i figured that she would charge him with voluntary manslaughter, since that would be a slam dunk conviction, just based on the information that we have. she obviously has enough to go for the second degree murder
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 12, 2012 10:27:27 GMT
they WERE working pro bono, but nonetheless, it was not just his not returning calls. it was his trying to personally contact the prosecutor, and his calling sean hannity at fox news. it was also his setting up another web site other than the one the attorneys set up for him without consulting them. zimmerman has NO business talking to anyone at all except his attorneys. when you choose to be stupid and not follow instructions, you get canned Jumbo - These attorneys are classic ambulance chasers trying to get a high profile case. Did you know that they've never met Zimmerman face-to-face? Their communications were mostly via text messaging on a cell phone. I think they were not the right attorneys for Zimmerman, and apparently he thinks so too. Hard to say how this will play out. The prosecutor may charge him with manslaughter which only requires a presumption of guilt. To actually be convicted, he would need to go through a jury trial with all twelve jurors voting guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There may be evidence we haven't seen or don't know about, but based on what's been reported thus far, I don't think 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is in the cards. By the way, calling Sean Hannity makes a lot of sense. Zimmerman has to feel like he's been tried and convicted in the liberal media without his side of the story being fairly considered. He knows that Fox News is the only really fair and balanced news outlet. So it is very logical that he would contact them to get his side of the story out. the fact that they have never met him face to face is irrelevant. they have talked to him on the phone. while not commonplace, it is certainly not isolated. it does occur frequently. it has only been six weeks. there is OBVIOUSLY evidence that we don't know about, or she would have only charged him with voluntary manslaughter. that would be a guaranteed conviction. with just the information that we have, second degree murder is a real stretch. this chick is a pro, and wouldn't overcharge him. totally aside from the FACT that faux news is NOT fair, or balanced, in any way, calling hannity was stupid. besides the fact that he had no business talking to ANYONE about the case, if he wanted to try to get his side of the story to those who are against him, he would have called bill maher or someone whom the people actually watch and listen to
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 12, 2012 10:51:15 GMT
I was surprised at the serious charge, but I see that the New York Times are quoting a legal expert who says the charges may be overly severe to allow several lesser charges to be introduced as the evidence comes in: Mr. Weiner suggested that the prosecutor might have “overcharged” to retain the option, should she feel a murder conviction is slipping away, of asking the judge to instruct the jury to consider lesser offenses, like manslaughter. It is also possible, he said, that she might be trying to coax Mr. Zimmerman to the negotiating table to plead guilty to such a lesser charge. But, he added, it is impossible to say whether it is overly tough, since evidence has not yet been produced.
The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.
At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”
Either side in the case could request that the judge instruct the jury to consider that middle ground, and if the evidence supports such a finding the judge will in almost all cases comply, Professor Weisberg said.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 12, 2012 10:58:35 GMT
As Trayvon's mother said, justice has been done by this arrest; and, like Sadie, I hope that those that have been stoking the lynch mob/s are responsible enough to send that message out loud and clear.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Apr 12, 2012 13:09:38 GMT
I think they are over-charging him intentionally and can then plead out to a lesser degree....then everyone looks better. They look like they were playing tough and took the situation as serious as it was.....he takes responsibility by saying he did do something wrong........there is a punishment of some jail time.......and it all goes away.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 12, 2012 13:16:30 GMT
Anna - Zimmerman, guilty or innocent, has made some decisions that IMO show a reckless irresponsibility. A irresponsibility that has resulted in a death. Dearest Captain, Hopefully the impending trial will reveal the truth as to how this tragedy really occured!
I'm sure that if Mr. Zimmerman were Black and Trayvon Martin were White and got shot while bashing the Black Mr. Zimmerman the "activists" like Rev. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their crowd would be fiercely defending the Black Mr. Zimmerman, if all the circumstances were the same! They'd be screaming racism and saying a Black man isn't allowed to defend himself against a White man's beating.
www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/26/trayvon-martins-killer-claims-teen-punched-him-slammed-his-head-into-ground/ QUOTE: The Sentinel said Monday that authorities had provided the paper with Zimmerman's account of events, in which he said he called police after spotting Martin, then lost sight of him and was returning to his SUV when the teen allegedly approached him from the left rear and they exchanged words.
Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the nose, then as he fell to the ground, got on top of him and slammed his head into the sidewalk, causing Zimmerman to yell for help.
The paper said at least one witness told police he saw Martin pounding Zimmerman.
Anna - You seem more upset at certain people that want to defend Trayvon then by the fact an unarmed teen was shot and killed. I don't doubt for a moment that Zimmerman's reckless behavior put him into a situation. The question now is did that situation merit the shooting and killing of Trayvon? A question a jury will now decide. The "stand your ground" law is also on trial. I personally don't believe the law is a worthy defense for Zimmerman, but I know many feel otherwise. It'll be interesting
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 12, 2012 15:29:05 GMT
Jumbo said, "this chick is a pro, and wouldn't overcharge him."
Do a google search for the prosecutor by name and you will discover that she has a reputation as a bit of a loose cannon.
Based on what we know now, this will result in a hung jury or an acquittal. The police and the prosecutor will then be above criticism. They'll simply wring their hands and say, "We tried."
Had they not charged him then the Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton rabble rousers would continue to put heat on the prosecutor and the police. This way, they pass the torch to a jury and get out from under the criticism.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Apr 12, 2012 15:44:38 GMT
Dearest Captain, Hopefully the impending trial will reveal the truth as to how this tragedy really occured!
I'm sure that if Mr. Zimmerman were Black and Trayvon Martin were White and got shot while bashing the Black Mr. Zimmerman the "activists" like Rev. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their crowd would be fiercely defending the Black Mr. Zimmerman, if all the circumstances were the same! They'd be screaming racism and saying a Black man isn't allowed to defend himself against a White man's beating.
www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/26/trayvon-martins-killer-claims-teen-punched-him-slammed-his-head-into-ground/ QUOTE: The Sentinel said Monday that authorities had provided the paper with Zimmerman's account of events, in which he said he called police after spotting Martin, then lost sight of him and was returning to his SUV when the teen allegedly approached him from the left rear and they exchanged words.
Zimmerman said Martin punched him in the nose, then as he fell to the ground, got on top of him and slammed his head into the sidewalk, causing Zimmerman to yell for help.
The paper said at least one witness told police he saw Martin pounding Zimmerman.
Anna - You seem more upset at certain people that want to defend Trayvon then by the fact an unarmed teen was shot and killed. I don't doubt for a moment that Zimmerman's reckless behavior put him into a situation. The question now is did that situation merit the shooting and killing of Trayvon? A question a jury will now decide. The "stand your ground" law is also on trial. I personally don't believe the law is a worthy defense for Zimmerman, but I know many feel otherwise. It'll be interesting Dearest Captain, Fists can kill and Trayvon was using his 2 hard fists and was thus not unarmed! Trayvon was also slamming Zimmerman's head on the pavement! He was a strong kid and by no means defenseless!
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 12, 2012 15:57:37 GMT
Dearest Captain, Fists can kill and Trayvon was using his 2 hard fists and was thus not unarmed! Trayvon was also slamming Zimmerman's head on the pavement! He was a strong kid and by no means defenseless! I'm guessing you're ignoring the "fact" that, if it's proven to be true, it was Zimmerman's reckless behavior that put him in that situation.
|
|