27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 01:43 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
The god damn media is still telling the fools to view Trayvon as a near saint and Zimmerman as a gun crazy racist and to hell with a jury verdict or all the facts that had come out since the shooting that said otherwise.


Part of the deal is that nobody is talking about Ben Ghazi, the IRS, or any of Obunga's truckload of scandals any more. Zimmerman/Martin may be Obunga's version of Wag-the-Dog.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 01:48 am
@oralloy,
Nancy Grace was a factor in the Duke Lacrosse fiasco:

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=nancy+grace+duke+lacrosse&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
gungasnake
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 02:21 am
@gungasnake,
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 04:43 am
@gungasnake,
God I love that video but it is sad that she still have her show and along with the Sharptons of the world including Al Sharpton himself are still harming innocent people such as the Duke players and Zimmerman and it all for the ratings that a good interracial group rape or a racial motivate shooting will produce even when neither happen.

Footnote yes the shooting did happen but by a jury verdict and commonsense/evidence it was a justify self defense shooting not a racial motivate murder,
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 06:15 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
How was he "risking his own welfare"?
possible danger of gasoline fire, maybe



firefly wrote:
He simply helped this family get out of their overturned car--there were no injuries,
there was no element of danger.
possible danger of gasoline fire, maybe



firefly wrote:
And what do you mean "once more"--he imperiled the welfare of his fellow citizens in the past,
particularly one named Trayvon Martin.
Anti-burglary surveillance; that was a GOOD thing,
tho not for burglars nor for attempted murderers.
Martin brought the end of his life upon himself.






firefly wrote:
When you wind up profiling, following,
Will u be good enuf to cite to any rule of law
(i.e., any statutory or judicial authority)
showing that profiling or following anyone is against the law??
U imply (without proving) that it is.





firefly wrote:
and killing, unarmed black minors,
Martin used the cement pavement as a lethal weapon; he was not "unarmed".
His age was not relevant to the un-provoked, attempted murder
that the "minor" was perpetrating when his victim defeated him.







firefly wrote:
who are legitimate guests in your housing complex,
and who were not engaged in any wrong-doing,
Slamming Zimmy 's head on the street was doing rong
(unless u take Zimmy 's earlier support of Obama into consideration)





firefly wrote:
you can hardly claim to be "protecting" that community.
He protected it from Travon Martin.




firefly wrote:
He risked his own welfare to satisfy his personal obsessions that night,
Olivia might deem his anti-burglary obsessions to be very good.



firefly wrote:
with blacks he considered "f--king punks", and not "to serve his fellow citizens."
According to Firefly,
fighting against burglary is not
serving his fellow citizens; of that, I remain skeptical.




firefly wrote:
Stop trying to turn him into a hero--he's not one.
He was heroic in killing Martin,
an attempted murderer, if not a burglar.




firefly wrote:
Maybe he just jumped on the opportunity to get some positive publicity by helping this family out.
SO WHAT ??




firefly wrote:
He obviously didn't want his name kept out of it.
Did he have a duty toward anonymity ????





David
BillRM
 
  2  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 07:11 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I am sure David that Firefly had similarly placed he life at risk by approaching a car who gasoline tank could had been leaking where any hot parts of the car could set off like a bomb or for that matter some other driver not paying attention could have run into the overturn SUV.

Hell she is a very brave woman indeed as I am sure only such a woman could so cheerfully downgrade other people actions to aid others.

Oh, I am also sure that she had done similar things as going to black churches and speaking out in public meetings over the beatings of a homeless black man and the police not taking any actions over it.

An she had spend hundreds of hours in voluntary work to make her neighbors safer.

You see why I have Firefly on ignore David as such a woman can cause your blood pressure to go up.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 07:43 am
@revelette,
Quote:
I personally find it stupidly ironic for Zimmerman fans to be talking of race baiting which is the current spin term right now with most of the shrill conservative parrots demonizing the memory of a dead 17 year old boy.


These people aren't defending Zimmerman, revelette, they are defending GUNS.

And hyping fears of blacks, even of black children is intended to justify their need to carry their GUNS.

Any sane person realizes that Zimmerman's poor judgment, impulsivity, and racial profiling led to the death of an innocent young minor--Trayvon Martin had no interest in harming anyone that night, he was on his way home to watch an NBA basketball game.

Zimmerman disregarded the rules of being a neighborhood watch by stalking this teen, and by carrying his GUN while doing so, because his need to be a vigilante, and to satisfy his own personal obsessions, obscured all else, including common sense and good judgment. He needlessly provoked a confrontation and altercation with an unarmed child, and then killed that child when he tried to defend himself.

These gun-lovers are celebrating the vindication of using a gun at a fist-fight, and championing the poorly written Florida self-defense laws that allowed the shooter to escape criminal responsibility for his acts.

They have tried to demonize an innocent child, walking home from the store with candy and a soft drink--a child who was too young to buy a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer at that store--because, if they acknowledge that this child posed no threat to anyone, when spotted and erroneously profiled by Zimmerman, they would have to admit that this entire tragic incident, and needless death, was Zimmerman's fault. They are celebrating the use of a GUN, and they have no interest in avoiding the need to use a GUN, or even avoiding its use in a fistfight with an unarmed child who is trying to defend himself from a menacing stranger.

Even the jurors in this case have asked for a change in the self-defense laws that allowed them to acquit Zimmerman, because they, unlike the gun-lovers in this thread, did not view Zimmerman as without blame or moral responsibility for this death.

It's all about GUNS, revelette, these people really have no regard for George Zimmerman beyond being able to use him to advocate for the need to carry a GUN, and, to do that, that have to promote him as the hapless victim of an unprovoked attack by another dangerous black male, the kind that fills our prisons, and, thank goodness, Zimmerman had that GUN to protect himself. This is NRA PRO-GUN publicity carried to the max, designed to stoke fears, even of children armed with a bag of candy and a soft-drink, if they are black.

And now they have to go after Sharpton and Jackson, and even Obama, and any other black leaders who are saying those flawed Florida self-defense laws have to be revised or repealed. They fear that someone like Sharpton has the organizational skills to harness enough social and political power to accomplish that task. They don't want to see blacks engaging in effective social action, they want to see them rioting, because that's good for the PRO-GUN movement, it helps to sell more guns. They don't like the effective social action that helped to finally get Zimmerman arrested, or that brought out people, all across the country, to march last Saturday, despite the blazing heat, demanding justice for Trayvon Martin. And an upcoming march on Washington next month will galvanize this movement even more, and that includes their demands for better GUN CONTROL, and better background gun checks, to stop shadow purchasers from flooding our inner cities with more GUNS.

It's all about GUNS, revelette, which is why these gun-lovers choose to ignore the history of psychological problems, and run-ins with the law over his problems with aggression, which should have prevented George Zimmerman from ever being able to legally carry his GUN. Notice how they completely ignore that issue, which are matters based on fact and, instead, dwell on fantasies and fabrications about his victim in a desperate attempt to deny the fact that the truly dangerous one was the person with a GUN--and the fact that, had he not had his GUN that night, he might have been able to exercise enough common sense, and good judgment, to remain in his car. GUNS empower people like Zimmerman to act in reckless ways. Zimmerman didn't need a GUN that night to protect himself--he needed the capacity to think rationally, and the self-control to remain in his car. That GUN made an already unstable person a danger and a menace in that community he was allegedly "protecting"--which is why he wound up killing an innocent child who belonged in that community.

George Zimmerman should never be allowed to carry a gun again. He has already shown he is not responsible or stable enough to be able to do that--he could not even abide by the rules of his own neighborhood watch that one should not follow "suspects", and that one should not be carrying a GUN.

There is already an online petition, with close to 22,000 signatures, asking that Zimmerman's permit for concealed carry of a gun to be revoked. It will be printed out and delivered to the Florida DOJ & DACS: Division of Licensing Concealed Weapons.

http://www.causes.com/no-gun-rights-for-zimmerman

All those who realize that GUNS should not be carried by psychologically unstable individuals, with past legal histories involving aggressive actions, should sign the above petition.





BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 07:46 am
Quote:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/07/23/what-no-one-will-tell-you-about-the-george-zimmerman-case/

Actually, The Daily Caller has reported that “Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total ‘Stand Your Ground’ claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims [55 percent] have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.”

So, as blacks seem to be benefiting from the ability to defend themselves outside their homes, is the president simply practicing political opportunism by using a crisis to push his preferred policies? The president says racial profiling is to blame, but the facts show that most blacks killed today are killed by other blacks (93% of the time). He says we need to reduce the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms even though most of the murders today are taking place in areas where handgun ownership is either banned or severely restricted.

Maybe it’s time the president notices that inner-city gun laws aren’t being adequately enforced. For example, in 2012 Chicago was the murder capital of the U.S. Incredibly, also in 2012, Chicago ranked dead last when it came to enforcement of federal gun laws. Out of 90 federal jurisdictions in the country, Chicago ranked 90th. David Burnham, co-director of Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, determined that according to case-by-case U.S. Justice Department information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by TRAC, there were 52 prosecutions in Illinois North (Chicago) in 2012, or 5.52 per million in population. By this measure, compared with the 90 federal judicial districts in the U.S., the prosecution rate in Chicago was the lowest in the entire nation even as the city’s murder rate was the highest.

Meanwhile, criminals who try to buy guns aren’t being prosecuted. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), in 2010 of the 6 million Americans who attempted to buy a gun about 76,000 were denied. Of those, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of these, just 44 people were prosecuted and 13 punished.

What this means is that people with criminal records in Chicago are not only aware that the chances of being prosecuted for having an illegal handgun are low, but they also know they likely won’t be prosecuted if they pay someone who has a clean record (a straw purchaser) to buy a handgun for them. This is the real moral issue that needs to be addressed. Blacks are being killed almost every day in Chicago. To save lives in the inner cities, gun laws need to be enforced.

Next , law-abiding citizens need the ability to apply for and obtain permits to carry concealed handguns. Instead of creating a class of victims while not arresting and prosecuting the bad guys enough, how about allowing good citizens to utilize their Second Amendment rights?

This debate has historical context. In the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion noted that “after the Civil War, many of the over 180,000 African Americans who served in the Union Army returned to the States of the old Confederacy, where systematic efforts were made to disarm them and other blacks. The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that ‘no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife….”

In fact, Justice Alito wrote: “Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves. In the first session of the 39th Congress, Senator Wilson told his colleagues: ‘In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages upon them; and the same things are done in other sections of the country.’”

Congress attempted to fix this problem by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill, but Congress passed it again, this time with a veto-proof majority. Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 guaranteed the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.”

In McDonald the Court noted that one of the “core purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of the Fourteenth Amendment was to redress the grievances” of freedmen who had been stripped of their arms and to “affirm the full and equal right of every citizen to self-defense.”

After the Civil War, Congress ultimately found these legislative remedies to be insufficient, so they decided that a constitutional amendment was necessary to provide full protection of rights for blacks. “Today, it is generally accepted that the Fourteenth Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866,” ruled the Court in McDonald.

In fact, when debating the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Samuel Pomeroy said, “Every man … should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.”

The majority opinion in McDonald also mentioned Chicago’s murder problem: “[The] number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq … 80 percent of the Chicago victims were black…. If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.”

Understanding this period of history should make any honest person realize how appalling it is that today’s inner-city neighborhoods, which often have the highest murder rates, have some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation. Honest people in those neighborhoods are barred from defending themselves just as Southern blacks once were.

Wherever racial profiling exists it needs to be solved honestly and aggressively. But using racial relations as an excuse to reduce individual rights already has sad history rooted in racism. However someone views the verdict in the Zimmerman case, this tragedy shouldn’t be used as an excuse to reduce the constitutional freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
firefly
 
  2  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 08:16 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
What this means is that people with criminal records in Chicago are not only aware that the chances of being prosecuted for having an illegal handgun are low, but they also know they likely won’t be prosecuted if they pay someone who has a clean record (a straw purchaser) to buy a handgun for them. This is the real moral issue that needs to be addressed...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/07/23/what-no-one-will-tell-you-about-the-george-zimmerman-case/


Which is also why better GUN CONTROL measures are needed--to stop those straw purchasers and shadow buyers from being able to get those GUNS and bring them into the inner cities.

It's the GUN LOBBY/NRA who fights these measures to keep guns out of our inner cities...

By posting that article, BillRM simply confirms that his support of Zimmerman is all about GUNS--BillRM is a mouthpiece for the NRA PRO-GUN publicity machine. He couldn't care less about the senseless gun violence that plagues our country--he really couldn't care less about Zimmerman--it's all about his own love of GUNS.

George Zimmerman was not "a law-abiding citizen"--he had been in court twice on matters related to his aggressive behaviors. He had been court-ordered to take anger management classes. He disregarded all rules for appropriate conduct by a neighborhood watch the night he shot Trayvon Martin. This psychologically unstable man should not be allowed to carry a GUN.

All those who realize that GUNS should not be carried by psychologically unstable individuals, with past legal histories involving aggressive actions, should sign this petition to get that GUN out of George Zimmerman's hands.

http://www.causes.com/no-gun-rights-for-zimmerman

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 08:43 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Smear campaign such as releasing the fact that he had...naked pictures of underage girls on his phone?

Yes, you're trying to smear a 16 year old kid, by implying something untoward about his liking to look at pictures of naked females--something all 16 year old boys enjoy doing. And, whether he did or did not have such pictures on his phone, is completely unrelated to anything about his death at the hands of George Zimmerman.

And you are ignoring the fact that George Zimmerman was accused of actual child molestation by his cousin.
Quote:
Zimmerman’s attorneys successfully argued that those acts were inadmissible or irrelevant. But these accusations offer us other truths: that violence against girls and women is often an overlooked and unchecked indicator of future violence...

In Zimmerman’s case, two pieces of character evidence never made it to the trial. First, a recorded statement from Witness No. 9, Zimmerman’s female cousin, in which she said that he molested her for ten years when they were both children, beginning when she just 6 years old. Second, a report filed in August 2005, when Zimmerman’s former fiancé sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence.

The latter accusation is especially important because it provided the blueprint for Zimmerman’s own claim of self-defense again Trayvon Martin...Zimmerman’s pattern for violence had already been established: trolling a neighborhood for his victim, pushing her when confronted, attacking her character, and arguing that she was the aggressor when charges were filed against him...

In our current moment of post-verdict protests, we should reflect on several moments in which the legal system failed Trayvon Martin. But, as his cousin’s and former fiance’s disclosures suggests, the system fell apart long before the fateful night that Zimmerman profiled and murdered this innocent teenage boy. And I cannot help but wonder if Zimmerman had been held accountable for the violence he had already inflicted on girls and women, that Trayvon Martin might be with us here today.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175270/domestic-violence-and-george-zimmermans-defense#ixzz2Zsb5YWFT


All those who realize that GUNS should not be carried by psychologically unstable individuals, with past legal histories involving aggressive actions, should sign this petition to get that GUN out of George Zimmerman's hands.

http://www.causes.com/no-gun-rights-for-zimmerman


izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 08:53 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Yes, you're trying to smear a 16 year old kid, by implying something untoward about his liking to look at pictures of naked females--


You've got to remember that BillRM is a passionate supporter of women's rights, who opposes all forms of pornography.

He's not the same person who described someone watching child pornography as a 'valuable member of society,' is he?
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:16 am
@izzythepush,
BillRM's also the same one whose first wife got an order of protection against him, because of domestic violence, and the same one who was kicked out of a public park after other adults profiled him as acting like a pedophile.

Is it any wonder he sees George Zimmerman as a person of sterling character?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:21 am
Three of the last four postings is from our own version of Nancy Grace and my curiosity is getting to me however my blood pressure pills supply is not all that great so for my own long term health I am going to forgo her nonsense for now.
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:31 am
@BillRM,
It's not nonsense that your former wife obtained an order of protection against you, for domestic violence--and you didn't even show up in court to dispute the charges.

You're the one who reveals these things about yourself, so stop getting in a huff, and acting like the injured party, when they're mentioned.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:35 am
@firefly,
He's read our posts, he just can't face up to his own hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:18 am
Quote:
NAACP Petition to DOJ Reaches 1.5 Million Signatures

The NAACP’s petition to the Department of Justice asking for federal charges, including civil rights charges, to be filed against George Zimmerman has reached 1.5 million signatures.

This major milestone was reached in just three days. The petition was set up on Saturday evening shortly after the verdict finding George Zimmerman not guilty in the murder of Trayvon Martin was read.

Roslyn M. Brock, chairman of the NAACP National Board of Directors, was thankful for the support the petition has received. “The support our petition has received shows the mindset of the American public, who are tired of a system of justice that allows for appalling verdicts like the one we saw on Saturday.”

Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP, addressed the specifics of the NAACP’s request.

“It is clear George Zimmerman’s bias played a major role in the events that led to the death of Trayvon Martin. A cousin called the police days after the murder and said, ‘I think he did this because of race.’ He had previously called the police dozens of times, disproportionately about young men of color who he thought were suspect. George Zimmerman himself stated on the night of the attack, ‘These punks always get away with this.’ The law says you must be able to show that race was a factor and that bodily harm was done. We believe there is enough evidence to satisfy this standard.”

The NAACP also partnered with MoveOn.org on a petition in support of the effort.

“MoveOn members from all walks of life joined with the NAACP to demand justice for Trayvon and his family because this verdict cannot be the final say in this case, " added Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org. "We will continue to fight for justice for Trayvon Martin, and we will work to address the deep-seated injustices that continue to plague our nation--from racial profiling to the proliferation of guns, from Stand Your Ground laws to a deeply flawed criminal justice system.”

Interested parties can still sign the petition, which will remain active and open until the Department of Justice completes their case.

Sign the petition by visiting: https://donate.naacp.org/page/s/doj-civil-rights-petition?
Or text “JUSTICE” to 62227

https://donate.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-petition-to-doj-reaches-1.5-million-signatures
Miller
 
  3  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:33 am
@firefly,
Quote:
‘These punks always get away with this.’ The law says you must be able to show that race was a factor and that bodily harm was done.


Since when does the term "punk" specify race?

By the way, only 1.5 million individuals signed the petition. Why so few?
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:38 am
@Miller,
Quote:
By the way, only 1.5 million individuals signed the petition. Why so few?


The only poll that should matter is the six women who hear the case as jurors not how many fools the media and Al Sharpton and the like can work up to demand a second political trial this time at the Federal level.

To me one political trial is one too many.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 11:00 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

Quote:
‘These punks always get away with this.’ The law says you must be able to show that race was a factor and that bodily harm was done.


Since when does the term "punk" specify race?

By the way, only 1.5 million individuals signed the petition. Why so few?

one answer is that the NAACP is a shadow of what it once was, there is very little there there. I mean seriously, who takes this group seriously these days?
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jul, 2013 11:07 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
one answer is that the NAACP is a shadow of what it once was,


Another answer is that most black men and women are bright enough to think for themselves and come to the same conclusion that the jury did.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 08:36:35