No he just needs to raise more money so he can hire so ex Special Forces types to defend him.

Nobody is entitled to more than one warning.

Tick..... tick....

Quote:

I fear malintent (I would), throw a punch and knock the guy down to protect myself

So, do you go around punching people that look at you funny?

StevieG WTF?!?!

Did you even ****ing read the ticker?

Quote:

If he just left Martin alone, as instructed by the police

A liar is always caught lying. Police? Are 911 operators that suggest things now police instructing people?

In a recent case in NC involving a home invasion, a younger teenager was "ordered" by the 911 dispatcher to not shoot the home invader. He did anyway, and probably saved himself and his sister who was also home at the time.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/105....

I agree with you 100% Karl.
However, here is my problem, Zimmerman followed Martin when he was specifically told not to.
Imagine you are Martin...... someone is watching you, you get scared and call your girlfriend, the person begins to follow you getting closer, closer, maybe the guy tries to grab you ("till the police arrive" in Zimmermans mind). In Martins mind (and mine if I was in his presumed position) he may have thought he was getting attacked/mugged by Zimmerman and sought to protect himself.

Yes, there are presumptions in what I have said.

All I will say is I have an open mind, and this is one possible scenario to me, a scenario that does not bode well for Zimmerman, though I do think the prosecutor may have screwed the pooch by over charging.

Hope the trial brings out the real truth of what actually happened, but really only Zimmerman and a dead Martin will know for sure.

Quote:

StevieG WTF?!?! Did you even ****ing read the ticker?

Yes I did. I think I am about to be banned for dissent though. I understand Zimmerman has injuries consistent with feeling his life was threatened. But isn't the question how he got there? If Zimmerman *initiated* the confrontation, and Martin felt threatened to the point of believing he needed to disable his assailant (who had a gun, by the way, which may have been perceived as threatening), then wasn't Martin justified on the same basis as Zimmerman's defense? That's all I'm saying - shouldn't it come down to who initiated the physical confrontation? Are we 100% certain that it was not Zimmerman? I am aware of no compelling evidence. I may be wrong. Tell me so. Or just ban me.

If Zimmerman is acquitted the narrative will shift to talking about how Stand Your Ground it's at fault for allowing him to get away with murder so they'll just redouble their efforts towards more restrictive gun control. The actual facts matter not at all.

Winners:
The President - Who now has a son that looks like Trayvon, and who appeals to those who will most likely vote for him in the next election
The Governor - he looks like he is pursuing justice to most people, and preventing public disorder, when he actually may be eroding individual rights by assigning a special prosecutor. More power to the state. A "conservative" Republican wouldn't do that, would he?
The Sanford Police -actually not charging someone when evidence did not merit it...that took some guts on their part in today's arm chair general world.

Losers:
The Special Prosecutor - it probably is going ot come out that there was not enough evidence to justify the charges, and the manner they were presented was not geared for some sort of a conviction, but rather public consumption. If the SP has political ambitions, she may use this to form some popular base of support, but that is a big questionmark. I don't think it will work.
The Media - Objectivity and reporting the facts? Please...spare me. Of course, we are all already forgetting their role in reporting this event. By next month nobody will remember "...he looks black..."
The Public - every time someone attacks you, you have to worry about getting arrested with the costs, uncertainty (you think a court system works the right way all the time?) and humiliating experiences that go with it...all in the name of justice. And it is sold to you as doing the right thing.
The Black community - there is little to point at as reasoned, responsible leadership here from the Obamas, Sharptons, Jacksons, et.al. There is certainly no support for due process or individual rights.
Zimmerman - almost killed, scraping for money, threatened with kidnapping or death, out of an apparent desire to do right by his community and even threatened black people. He has become the epitome of the saying "no good deed goes unpunished." When he can safely walk the street again is anybodies guess.
Martin - Death is the ultimate bummer...

Quote:

Yes I did. I think I am about to be banned for dissent though. I understand Zimmerman has injuries consistent with feeling his life was threatened. But isn't the question how he got there? If Zimmerman *initiated* the confrontation, and Martin felt threatened to the point of believing he needed to disable his assailant (who had a gun, by the way, which may have been perceived as threatening), then wasn't Martin justified on the same basis as Zimmerman's defense? That's all I'm saying - shouldn't it come down to who initiated the physical confrontation? Are we 100% certain that it was not Zimmerman? I am aware of no compelling evidence. I may be wrong. Tell me so. Or just ban me.

Precisely.
Who had the fear for their life first?
Martin or Zimmerman.

I for one don't know, but I have put myself in BOTH Zimmermans AND Martins shoes.

Firefly and StevieG ... there has been no evidence that has come out to suggest that Martin had any damage on his body.(beyond the gunshot wound)

You two are both ignoring the evidence to frame some sort of agenda and making stupid posts.

Quote:

Yes I did. I think I am about to be banned for dissent though. I understand Zimmerman has injuries consistent with feeling his life was threatened. But isn't the question how he got there? If Zimmerman *initiated* the confrontation, and Martin felt threatened to the point of believing he needed to disable his assailant (who had a gun, by the way, which may have been perceived as threatening), then wasn't Martin justified on the same basis as Zimmerman's defense? That's all I'm saying - shouldn't it come down to who initiated the physical confrontation? Are we 100% certain that it was not Zimmerman? I am aware of no compelling evidence. I may be wrong. Tell me so. Or just ban me.

No you're going to get banned for intentionally obfuscating the truth ...

There is no evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin. You need to read more on the timeline and review where the altercation took place:

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/e....

Because you're just making stuff up out of your mind and ignoring the preponderance of evidence that suggests that Martin confronted Zimmerman ... not the other way around.

@Sreavis007:

Exactly. If the prosecution had evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, it would have been presented (physical injury to the face, head, body, etc), but even in the weak affidavit, the prosecutor simply said "a struggle ensued" ...

Go Alan Dershowitz!

Quote:

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/....

If I was carrying a concealed weapon the worst possible situation for me would be to be in close proximity and initiate any type of confrontation (verbal or physical) with a person who was bigger than me, may or may not be armed, and who knows what state of mind(walking in the rain late at night). If you allow yourself to get close to a person they are likely to take the gun from you or hurt you before you can grab the gun.

It would also seem unlikely for Martin to have charged Zimmerman if he already had his gun out and was aiming at Martin. More likely under this scenario is that Martin runs or just stands there until the police arrive. If he would have charged Zimmerman with a gun pointing at him there would likely be a discharge that hit Martin and no head lacerations and broken nose for Zimmerman.

What seems the most plausible was that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and headed back to his car and was attacked from behind. Sustained some serious injuries while Martin was on top of him and was able to find his gun and use it.

In court today, when Zimmerman was on the stand, I was struck by the prosecutor questioning him. He referred to the action as "This Crime you committed" or "this crime."

Was this normal? Zimmerman answered the meat of the question. Why no objection? I thought that had to be determined.

Thanks for posting that site.

Quote:

There is no evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin. You need to read more on the timeline and review where the altercation took place:

So if Zimmerman did not pursue Martin, and was instead going to meet the officers near the mailboxes, how did the altercation and shooting occur at point F?? A point that is well away from the Truck and Mailboxes?
Just wondering.

Quote:

In court today, when Zimmerman was on the stand, I was struck by the prosecutor questioning him. He referred to the action as "This Crime you committed" or "this crime."

Because he was playing theatrics to the cameras and the media. Although, it isn't uncommon for prosecutors to say things like that, especially those of the overzealous nature.

Appreciate the link, there was information in that detailed timeline and analysis I was not aware of. After reading that information, and evidence that Martin doubled back, I am inclined to agree that it looks like Martin likely initiated the physical confrontation. It appears Zimmerman is probably being truthful that Martin approached him after Zimmerman halted his pursuit. And at some point after that, we all know Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him. What we do not know, and will never know, is who initiated the actual *physical* confrontation, or how and why it escalated to violence. One key witness is dead, the other has an interest in staying out of jail. One thing we do know is, the guy with the gun won. I guess there is a lesson to be learned there.

Quote:

What we do not know, and will never know, is who initiated the actual *physical* confrontation, or how and why it escalated to violence.

While the initiation of physical violence will probably play a role in the case...it's really irrelevant in the end...if someone attacks you physically, you have the right to defend yourself...but that right does not extend into beating the attackers head against the ground because you've crossed the line at that point into committing a felony.

Stevie, you're not being harassed for dissent, you're being called out for either being an intentionally obtuse dumbass, or just refusing to look at ANYthing objectively. You keep saying "Zimmerman initiated the confrontation." One, there's no way to prove that. Following someone and ASKING questions is NOT initiating an ALTERCATION. That's the difference here. Being nervous or*****ed off is NOT a legit reason to throw a punch. It just isn't. Also, Zimmerman's gun was CONCEALED - he wasn't waving a gun around. You obviously have no clue or experience with carrying concealed and believe the BS "cowboy" stereotype the anti-gun lobby likes to portray. I don't know all the facts - and I would like to. If something comes out that factually disputes what I've seen to this point, I'll change my views to compensate. You've got a scenario that you either believe (or has been given to you by the MSM) and you're bound and determined to make it fit.

JoeJohns? Every post from you regarding this event, in every thread has been biased and mostly ignorant since Day 1. You don't want the facts, you want to fry Zimmerman at the stake. I'm guessing completely that there's a racial bias from you, but that's complete speculation - I'll admit its a WAG.

Quote:

I guess there is a lesson to be learned there.

Yep, don't attack other people - you may not survive it.

Quote:

What we do not know, and will never know, is who initiated the actual *physical* confrontation, or how and why it escalated to violence.

Some of us have this thing called *common sense* ...

Zimmerman is 5' 9" - 170

Martin is 6' 3" - 170

Zimmerman has a history of working with underprivileged-inner city youth and stood up against the Sanford PD for the beating of a homeless black individual ...

Martin has a history of punching a school bus driver, refereeing fights at school, and possibly trafficking in drugs living a thug lifestyle ...


Using *common sense* ... which one is more likely to have started the altercation?

Again, we could be wrong and Zimmerman could have thrown the first punch, but character precedence has to have some bearing on your ability to review the evidence or you wind up like the prosecutor in this case ... as Derschowitz has pointed out -> STUPID.