Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe he didn't want Black Panthers on his back? People are scared of all black crime already, nobody wants an extra attention...
As definitive as the witness was in the beginning, I'm sure he heard from the likes of the Panthers as to why it would be prudent for him to change his story.
It's common for witnesses to not know what they see, but they don't usually do 180s.
It is you that can't grasp it pal. Put your grimy hands on this white girl because you think you have some special race or age privelidge to do so and given the opportunity it won't be the NRA you have to worry about.
what don't you understand about this? I can walk up to you get two inches from your face and look you in the eyebal. And ask you what the hell you are doing in my neighborhood and you can't do legally a damn thing about it? What don't you get about that pal/gal? I say to you, you are an Asian, Asian gangs have been robbing this neighborhood. I saw you looking around in the rain and peering in windows. Do you live here? I am a neighborhood watch. Look see me, I have a cell phone I am calling the police. Look see me, I have a right to protect my neighborhood and this is a public street I have the right to walk as close as I please behind you so long as I don't step on your heels. You have the right pal/gal to call the police, here take my cell phone call the police pal/gal and tell them there is a maniac stalking you and walking so close she is nearly stepping on my heals. If she touches me I am going to punch her in the nose, knock her to the ground and bang her head on the sidewalk until she nearly passes out. What don't you getvaboutbthat scenario pal/gal? I have a fundamental constitutional right to secure my neighborhood. According to Z if he turned out believed by a jury of his peers the confrontation took place when Trayvon closed ground on him. No walking on heels, no eyeball to eyeball why are you in my neighborhood. Just a young kid that someone had taught that brute force was an acceptable societal norm for dealing with problems. Don't like someone following you, just beat the hell out of them. Yea that's the way to run a life, but sooner or later that method will fail. That method failed.
I am wondering if black folks in this society have become so accustomed to crime in their streets that they believe it is acceptable to export that crime. My street doesn't want it. I would gladly have Zimmerman move onto my street.
Your "scenario" is bogus. GZ never identified himself as a neighborhood watch person to Trayvon....So, you think you have the right to take someone to task for infringing on your quiet use of your neighborhood...So did Trayvon. He had the right to walk home to the apartment where he was living and to do so unmolested by an unidentified suspicious male. George didn't even know the area....That makes it suspect to me that he was even there. Trayvon was within his given rights to be where he was. George was not. Read the articles, read George's own words, He did not identify himself. Read some of the intelligent postings, rational, logical, not ranting and inciteful. We all have the right you are describing...Freedom of quiet enjoyment. That right should not be dependent on the misinterpretation of a gun wielding vigilante. Trayvon had his rights taken away at gun point. And you are welcome to George, and al the George's out there in your neighborhood...but keep your children and your teens in the house for their own safety.
I have evolved beyond the point of being a willing participant in a lynch mob . I'll take my position over yours in the realm of human decency any day.
And what does Don have to say about that?
Btw, my position is that the law is being followed. Z has been charged with a crime; he is in jail awaiting the court ruling from a second bond hearing; he has TWO private defense attorneys, not having to use public defender; discovery in the case is in process; the eyes of many legal experts are watching this case; a jury trial will be scheduled and he will get his day in court; due process is in motion. This situation is not even in the realm of the famous Clarence Thomas words "a high tech lynching."
I saw you looking around in the rain and peering in windows. Do you live here? I am a neighborhood watch. Look see me, I have a cell phone I am calling the police. Look see me, I have a right to protect my neighborhood and this is a public street I have the right to walk as close as I please behind you so long as I don't step on your heels. You have the right pal/gal to call the police, here take my cell phone call the police pal/gal and tell them there is a maniac stalking you and walking so close she is nearly stepping on my heals.
And, if zimmerman had SAID any of the above to Martin, there would be no dead teenager.
Zimmerman silently stalked Martin; Martin tried to defend himself.
Your "scenario" is bogus. GZ never identified himself as a neighborhood watch person to Trayvon....So, you think you have the right to take someone to task for infringing on your quiet use of your neighborhood...So did Trayvon. He had the right to walk home to the apartment where he was living and to do so unmolested by an unidentified suspicious male. George didn't even know the area....That makes it suspect to me that he was even there. Trayvon was within his given rights to be where he was. George was not. Read the articles, read George's own words, He did not identify himself. Read some of the intelligent postings, rational, logical, not ranting and inciteful. We all have the right you are describing...Freedom of quiet enjoyment. That right should not be dependent on the misinterpretation of a gun wielding vigilante. Trayvon had his rights taken away at gun point. And you are welcome to George, and al the George's out there in your neighborhood...but keep your children and your teens in the house for their own safety.
Great post, JanND!!!
Can't rep you; I have to spread it around...
Too often, people who expect and feel they deserve to live their lives in peace don't extend that courtesy to others. It's all about 'me'.
[snip]Under section 2, it should be fairly easy for the prosecution to establish that Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against him. His statements demonstrated his predisposed hostility towards Martin, his disregard of the police advisory not to follow Martin, and the fact that when he was confronted by Martin about his suspicious actions, Zimmerman did nothing to dissuade Martin that it was he who was the potential victim of a forcible felony. In point of fact Zimmerman's own statement that his response to Martin was "I don't have a problem" instead of explaining his reasons for following him in fact escalated the confrontation.
Further under 2, subsection a, and b; Zimmerman has yet to introduce any evidence or statement that he attempted to "exhaust[ed] every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;" or that he such as apologizing to Martin, pleading with Martin to stop, or any other action or statement made by Zimmerman to satisfy Martin that he was not a threat.
The statute clearly doesn't single out who throws the first punch, or even the second, it removes the claim of self-defense the defendant, in this case Zimmerman because it uses the clear and unambiguous that the person who initially provokes the use of force as being prohibited from being exempted from the using standing one's ground as a defense.
This is another problem for Zimmerman, by his own statements he acknowledged that he made a move to "reach his phone" which opens the door for the prosecution to question that statement as to whether or not Martin had already perceived that Zimmerman was carrying a weapon and the action was interpreted by Martin as Zimmerman attempting to draw it. Zimmerman's statement that it was Martin's attempt to grab his gun, not the belief that he was being beaten to death as his reason for shooting Martin is also problematic. As the provocateur of this entire affair, I would argue that he had even greater responsibility to do everything in his power to act in a reasonable manner when confronted by Martin (if that is the case) and also speaks volumes about his mind set prior to the onset of the confrontation.
Well Zimmerman was stupid enough to provide the state with such extensive testimony without the advise of counsel, he and his attorney's may not have any choice but to put him on the stand. Whether Zimmerman ultimately takes the stand will be based upon the flow of the trial and the strength or weakness of the prosecutions case. Depending on the course of the trial, Zimmerman, like Sandusky, may have no other option.
Your analysis would be pretty good if the defense never x-examines state witnesses or calls its own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
