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.
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.
Good post, Jan. I've always questioned the fact that GZ didn't know where he was. However, since he was sitting at the end of a cul-de-sac and it was a cut-through, I can understand why he didn't have an exact street address. Still, when I first listened to the 911 call, I immediately wondered why he didn't want to meet the police next to the mailboxes or one of the entrances (gates) to the community. He knew where the clubhouse was and its address, so why not meet an officer there? I've asked this question from the beginning.
Dispatcher: Okay, do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine.
Dispatcher: Alright, George. I'll let them know to meet you around there, okay?
Zimmerman: Actually, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah, that's no problem.
Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
He repeats "you got it" after this, something he said Trayvon Martin said when he was shot. Some people might think I'm overreaching, but most people (at least those with good grammar) would ask "Do you have it?" Twice during the 911 call, he said "you got it." Then he told police that the victim, who was shot at close range in the heart with a hollow point bullet, said "You got it." Just speculation on my part, but when people tell stories, they often interject their own words or thoughts using their own style of language.
There are a lot of people who aren't familiar with every street in their communities. However, in Zimmerman's case, not only was there a map provided with the NW brochure but, according to residents, George would drive around patrolling the neighborhood. He not only lived there for years, but called 911 over 40 times and reported incidents in that immediate area, so he knew the community quite well. I think he wanted to continue following his "suspect" and detain him so he wouldn't get away, thinking that it might take a while for the police to arrive. I can't think of any other reason he said "have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at." Even Chris Serino said:
"You wanted to catch him. You wanted to catch the bad guy, the f-----g punk who can’t get away,” Serino said, referring to words Zimmerman used on his call to police."
Listen to the interrogation. At one point, Zimmerman answered, "I wasn’t following him. I was just going in the same direction he was." Isn't that admitting he wasn't walking back to his car?
The irony - according to most, OJ got away with murder. He wasn't sent to jail for racial bigotry, but if you mean the type of jury who lets someone get away with muderer due to botched police investigations, evidence tampering and their own personal bias, I agree. I see there are still idiots in here calling a dead teenage boy names and laughing about a human life gone so prematurely. Once again, I am disgusted. Some people are just purely evil.
Yes and some people that have little that is unmotivated by other than their own personal bias sur feel free to call people idiots don't they? It is very unbecoming and below the threshold of learned counselor wisdom you have been trying to establish to call the defense stupid because the "persecution" is losing the debate. I knew you would stoop to the lowest common denominator in your due time. Your arguments are as weak as your character.
The irony - according to most, OJ got away with murder. He wasn't sent to jail for racial bigotry, but if you mean the type of jury who lets someone get away with muderer due to botched police investigations, evidence tampering and their own personal bias, I agree. I see there are still idiots in here calling a dead teenage boy names and laughing about a human life gone so prematurely. Once again, I am disgusted. Some people are just purely evil.
I found this interesting paragraph today. Could explain why some people have such a strong bias about Trayvon and black kids regarding this case, while to appearing to be concerned with the state of self-defense laws. Self defense seems to be a major interest in this business. Who knew?
Yes and some people that have little that is unmotivated by other than their own personal bias sur feel free to call people idiots don't they? It is very unbecoming and below the threshold of learned counselor wisdom you have been trying to establish to call the defense stupid because the "persecution" is losing the debate. I knew you would stoop to the lowest common denominator in your due time. Your arguments are as weak as your character.
Really? If your son died and someone said "oh are y'all still crying about that dead, thug?" I am sure you'd have a lot worse things to say than calling them an idiot. I never called the defense stupid, what are you talking about? The only "persecution" going on here is being done by idiots who feel the need to post lies and call a dead teenager names. Watch your personal attacks, there is quite a bit I could say about your character but it would be a waste of time since my post and yours will most likely be deleted. However I will say this, you have offered nothing to this thread but a bunch of nonsense about liberals and racism - your posts sound like you've been hitting the "purple drank" before you hit the keyboard each and every time. By the way, people who usually take the moral high road do not speak of a dead teenage boy in such an ill manner, nor do they defend those who do. It takes an extremly hateful person to laugh about someone losing a child or someone dying all because they were fought back when some wierdo followed them in the dark.
Yes and some people that have little that is unmotivated by other than their own personal bias sur feel free to call people idiots don't they? It is very unbecoming and below the threshold of learned counselor wisdom you have been trying to establish to call the defense stupid because the "persecution" is losing the debate. I knew you would stoop to the lowest common denominator in your due time. Your arguments are as weak as your character.
I found this interesting paragraph today. Could explain why some people have such a strong bias about Trayvon and black kids regarding this case, while to appearing to be concerned with the state of self-defense laws. Self defense seems to be a major interest in this business. Who knew?
It has something to do with it. Here on CD the stormfront members blow their dog whistles, on Stormfront they have nothing to hide. It is obvious that there is an agenda when some people that have contributed nothing to this discussion keep coming back to this thread only to bash Trayvon Martin or make jokes about his death. Even if I thought that George Zimmerman was completely innocent, I couldn't laugh about Trayvon Martin's death or call him names. They have even gone as far to talk about his parents. It is funny that the ones that keep attacking Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are bringing up race in this thread more than anyone else.
Your analysis would be pretty good if the defense never x-examines state witnesses or calls its own.
Not sure who those witnesses will be since there aren't any who can individually or collectively retell the tale since most, if not all, have either recanted or modified their initially reported statements indicating that it was too dark to see who was beating up whom, not that it matters. Of course I am sure that the defense will bring in its set of expert witnesses to testify that Zimmerman's wounds were life threatening, perhaps we will be treated to likes of Massad Ayoob who will regale the jury with lurid tales deadly encounters or more entertaining yet Mr. Zimmerman himself since he himself provided the overwhelming preponderance of the states evidence.
Either way, I'm not feeling your point, since I would be the last person on earth to prognosticate what verdict a jury will ultimately decide upon, even in cases with far more clear cut evidence of guilt or innocence. My "analysis" has been added to simply put a check the ignorance of the relevant Florida statutes.
IIt is funny that the ones that keep attacking Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are bringing up race in this thread more than anyone else.
Nothing funny, ie peculiar, about it. As you and I know it is standard procedure.
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.
Some people might think I'm overreaching, but most people (at least those with good grammar) would ask "Do you have it?" Twice during the 911 call, he said "you got it." Then he told police that the victim, who was shot at close range in the heart with a hollow point bullet, said "You got it." Just speculation on my part, but when people tell stories, they often interject their own words or thoughts using their own style of language. 
