Author Topic: Zimmerman - Self Defense Class or Benching 500 an Up? whats next? (Read 213252 times)

The True Adonis · « **Reply #725 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:28:15 AM »

One More

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

Updated: Monday, 26 Mar 2012, 2:57 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 5:47 PM EDT

ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.

The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.

Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.

What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.

The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.

It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.

Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.

And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.

coltrane · « **Reply #726 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:29:55 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on March 28, 2012, 07:53:09 AM

I still don`t see where Zimmerman should be charged with anything. He should be allowed to use his weapon if he is getting attacked. His Freedom of Speech should also be protected. You should be able to say whatever you want to whomever you want and not expect violence and if violence does occur, defending yourself should be a viable option.

I don`t see why the blacks are running with this case at all. Its pretty pathetic at this point.

Speech isn't 100% protected.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #727 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:29:59 AM »

Quote from: cross-of-iron on March 28, 2012, 10:27:20 AM

Here you go dumbass.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson-cooper-interviews-witnesses-to-trayvon-martin-shooting/

Dumbfuck, there's difference between HARRASAMENT and FREE SPEECH.

Calling someone a guy is a hate crime good luck using the free speech argument.

You can call anyone a guy anytime you want. Its not a hate crime you little crybaby bitch.

njanvi · « **Reply #728 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:30:47 AM »

so because he's a pissed poor fighter and was losing the fight, that means he was attacked?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #729 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:30:53 AM »

Quote from: Army of One on March 28, 2012, 09:20:00 AM

I asked this question in the other thread, but got no answer surprisingly.

If your mother comes outside her home to check that a stranger loitering outside isn't causing trouble, as she has had trouble in the past, you are all ok with the stranger punching her in the face, breaking her nose, then getting down and slamming her head in to the sidewalk multiple times?This is a reasonable response?

Bingo.

And getting your head slammed into the concrete is reasonable fear for ones' life permitting deadly force in response.

the kneepadders and race pimps are going to have a lot of egg on their faces after this is all over.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #730 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:35:10 AM »

Quote from: coltrane on March 28, 2012, 10:29:55 AM

Speech isn't 100% protected.

Of course it is. This is not "Fire in a crowded theater" scenario.

You can ask whatever you want to someone or call them any name you want.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #731 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:40:22 AM »

Quote from: cross-of-iron on March 28, 2012, 10:38:12 AM

Yeah, you're right, I was wrong about it being a hate crime. You're still a dumbass.

Why did you think it was a hate crime in the first place? Seriously, are you being brainwashed or something?

coltrane · « **Reply #732 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:47:39 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on March 28, 2012, 10:35:10 AM

Of course it is. This is not "Fire in a crowded theater" scenario.

You can ask whatever you want to someone or call them any name you want.

You said that "you should be able to say what you want to whoever". This is incorrect and not protected. These were your words.

You can't run up to a bunch of blacks and yell N9GGERS! That type of speech isn't protected. It wouldn't be protected under clear and present danger.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #733 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:47:41 AM »

Quote from: cross-of-iron on March 28, 2012, 10:43:16 AM

This case is a good example of a hate crime.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-isolates-audio-on-alleged-%E2%80%98fcking-cns%E2%80%99-trayvon-martin-911-call/

Not a hate crime and furthermore there should be no such thing anyways.

coltrane · « **Reply #734 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:48:26 AM »

And believe me, i'm not arguing Treyvon isn't mr. innocent here.

Just correcting your flawed understanding.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #735 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:51:14 AM »

Quote from: coltrane on March 28, 2012, 10:47:39 AM

You said that "you should be able to say what you want to whoever". This is incorrect and not protected. These were your words.

You can't run up to a bunch of blacks and yell N9GGERS! That type of speech isn't protected. It wouldn't be protected under clear and present danger.

Wrong. You must have failed your basics Civics classes. It IS Protected and yes I can run up and call a bunch of N9GGERS, N9GGERS anytime I want. It is protected and will always be protected. I hope this helps.

tommywishbone · « **Reply #736 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:51:31 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on March 28, 2012, 10:21:46 AM

According to eyewitness accounts Trayvon started it. The lack of bruises and cuts on Trayvon is also apparent.

Wow. I'm guessing there's some bruising where the 9mm slug went through him.

zimmermanpig started the shit. zimmerpig lies every time he speaks. Arrest zimmerpig and let 12 people determine the truth.

Eyewitnesses? LOL.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #737 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:53:24 AM »

Quote from: coltrane on March 28, 2012, 10:48:26 AM

And believe me, i'm not arguing Treyvon isn't mr. innocent here.

Just correcting your flawed understanding.

You are wrong. You can say guy all you want and call anyone you want one as much as you want, whenever and wherever you feel like it.

coltrane · « **Reply #738 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:57:14 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on March 28, 2012, 10:53:24 AM

You are wrong. You can say guy all you want and call anyone you want one as much as you want, whenever and wherever you feel like it.

Great video.

In all honesty TA, you're not correct on this one. I didn't fail anything.

Look up "imminent lawless act".

Do I agree with the test? That's another debate.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #739 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:58:05 AM »

Quote from: coltrane on March 28, 2012, 10:48:26 AM

And believe me, i'm not arguing Treyvon isn't mr. innocent here.

Just correcting your flawed understanding.

I hope this helps:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/online-call-to-shoot-obama-was-free-speech-not-a-crime-appeals-court-rules.html

Man's call for Obama assassination is free speech, not crime, court rules
July 19, 2011 | 4:27 pm

385
113

A La Mesa man who posted racial epithets and a call to "shoot" Barack Obama on an Internet chat site was engaging in constitutionally protected free speech, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in overturning his criminal conviction.

Walter Bagdasarian was found guilty two years ago of making threats against a major presidential candidate in comments he posted on a Yahoo.com financial website after 1 a.m. on Oct. 22, 2008, as Obama's impending victory in the race for the White House was becoming apparent. Bagdasarian told investigators he was drunk at the time.

A divided panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that conviction Tuesday, saying Bagdasarian's comments were "particularly repugnant" because they endorsed violence but that a reasonable person wouldn't have taken them as a genuine threat.

The observation that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head soon" and a call to "shoot the guy" weren't violations of the law under which Bagdasarian was convicted because the statute doesn't criminalize "predictions or exhortations to others to injure or kill the president," said the majority opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

"When our law punishes words, we must examine the surrounding circumstances to discern the significance of those words’ utterance, but must not distort or embellish their plain meaning so that the law may reach them," said the 2-1 ruling in which Chief Judge Alex Kozinski joined but Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw dissented.

coltrane · « **Reply #740 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:01:12 AM »

Youre correct in that the words written would be protected.

Have you looked up imminent lawless action yet? Clearly not.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #741 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:02:59 AM »

Quote from: cross-of-iron on March 28, 2012, 10:54:35 AM

You're right I'm brainwashed. The fact he is following him for no reason and heard saying fucking coons on a 911 call and then shooting him dead doesn't make it a hate crime at all.

You are assuming Zimm initiated the physical confrontation when witnesses say otherwise.

makaveli25 · « **Reply #742 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:03:06 AM »

I got in an argument with a black kid about 2 years back. He was shouting some bullshit things and I called him a guy. Guess who got in trouble. There was a cop nearby I didn't see. I had to do 20 hours of community service and pay a 300 dollar fine. I was charged with disorderly conduct. Use of profane language in public or some bullshit like that.

chaos · « **Reply #743 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:03:53 AM »

Cock-of-iranian taking E-kuls place as the token meltdown guy for this thread.

coltrane · « **Reply #744 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:05:14 AM »

Quote from: makaveli25 on March 28, 2012, 11:03:06 AM

I got in an argument with a black kid about 2 years back. He was shouting some bullshit things and I called him a guy. Guess who got in trouble. There was a cop nearby I didn't see. I had to do 20 hours of community service and pay a 300 dollar fine. I was charged with disorderly conduct. Use of profane language in public or some bullshit like that.

You probably didn't get arrested for calling him a guy. You probably got the discon for being loud etc.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #745 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:05:30 AM »

Quote from: coltrane on March 28, 2012, 11:01:12 AM

Youre correct in that the words written would be protected.

Have you looked up imminent lawless action yet? Clearly not.

I already know what it is and I already pointed out this is not a Fire in a Crowded Theater Scenario.
I can call any black I see a guy to his face and be protected, even if its a whole gang of them. I can call any queer a homo to their face and so on.

I don`t think you understand Free Speech at all.

reclifter · « **Reply #746 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:09:21 AM »

Can someone enlighten me a little on Hoodies?

From my understanding, a boy was shot/profiled because he looked like a thug in a hoodie. Apparently, the hoodie was why he was profiled.

Now, currently, people are wearing hoodies to protest and bring awareness. Why in the world would someone want to wear something that "supposedly" caused someone to be profiled and shot? Wearing a hoodie could possibly bring suspicions upon yourself, and possibly death, right?

This reminds of the "N" word a bit....taking something that is extremely disrespectful and call/refer to your friends and family using the "N" word.

Does wearing a hoodie like many IFBB pros build more muscle?

coltrane · « **Reply #747 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:12:45 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on March 28, 2012, 11:05:30 AM

I already know what it is and I already pointed out this is not a Fire in a Crowded Theater Scenario.
I can call any black I see a guy to his face and be protected, even if its a whole gang of them. I can call any queer a homo to their face and so on.

I don`t think you understand Free Speech at all.

Trust me. I am a practicing attorney. I've taken Con Law. I've read hundreds of Con Law Court decisions. I didn't fail a "basic civics" class.

If you did go into a crowd of blacks and yell that, and were arrested for a discon or the like, AND challenged it, your speech would not be protected as it would be seen as inciteful of an immediate unlawful response by the blacks.

Today I've taught TA how NOT to get his ass kicked AND kept him out of doing hours of community service.

coltrane · « **Reply #748 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:15:00 AM »

And honestly TA, I'm not trying to harass you about being confused on free speech. It isn't something that is easily understood. Try wading through some of the free speech decisions. TOUGH reading to understand, even with a legal background.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #749 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:22:32 AM »

Quote from: coltrane on March 28, 2012, 11:15:00 AM

And honestly TA, I'm not trying to harass you about being confused on free speech. It isn't something that is easily understood. Try wading through some of the free speech decisions. TOUGH reading to understand, even with a legal background.

Sorry, you are wrong. You can yell guy all you want and if you get beat up, you are protected. The word is not a green light for automatic acceptable violence. You are dead wrong.